BADRI PRASAD Vs. CHHITARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point for consideration in this second appeal is whether the property has been sold in contravention of Order 34, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure Code. But in the course of the hearing of the appeal, it appears that the judgment -debtor applied to the Insolvency Court and was adjudged insolvent. In the circumstances, before considering the appeal on merits, the question which arises is whether the insolvent judgment -debtor (Appellant) whose property has vested in the Receiver appointed by the Insolvency Court can continue this appeal.

(2.) IT is a well established proposition of law that when a person is declared insolvent, he becomes civilly dead and on each death, all his rights and liabilities devolve on the Receiver. It being so, the necessary corollary of this is that he has no locus standi to maintain the appeal. In Phani Bhushan Basu v. Shashi Bhushan Maity, AIR 1935 Cal. 391, I find support for my view: it is held therein that the property of the insolvent having vested in the Receiver, the Receiver completely represents the insolvent in law and the insolvent has no locus standi. In Balkrishna v. Calcutta Works, 40 Bom. LR 956, the Bombay High Court has held that a suit by an adjudicated insolvent during the pendency of the insolvency is not maintainable. It is not disputed that an appeal is a continuation of a suit. What is said about a suit also holds good of an appeal. A similar view has been taken in Abu Obeda v. Zamil Hassain , AIR 1948 All. 49.

(3.) FOR reasons stated above, I hold the Appellant, who is insolvent, has no locus standi to continue this appeal, which is in consequence, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.