DHANNA LAL Vs. CHHAGAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Misc. Appeal under Section 72 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, against the order of adjudication passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dated December 11, 1971, on an application filed under Section 7 of the Act, 1920 in Misc. Case No. 2/70.

(2.) AN application was filed by respondent Chhagan Lal in the lower court on 21. 1. 1969 under sec. 7 of the Act, stating that he has debts worth Rs. 10,000/-to 11,000/- over him and he has no property to pay these debts. A list of the creditors along with their amount was also mentioned therein. It was prayed therein that he may be adjudged to be insolvent. Notices were issued to the creditors who also filed affidavits issues were framed in the matter and after hearing the parties, learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion vide order under appeal that the applicant, prima-facie, is an insolvent and he had disclosed his assets in the application, which was maintainable and was entitled to be adjudged. The applicant was adjudged as an insolvent. It was further ordered that he will apply for discharge within a period of six months from the date of order. Against this order, the non-petitioner Dhanna Lal filed this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Dhanna Lal died and his legal heirs No. 1/1 to 1/7 were brought on record. During the pendency of the appeal, as per the order of the learned District Judge dated 11. 12. 1971 respondent Chhagan Lal filed an application under Sec. 41 of the Act, 1920 praying petitioner-appellant has not been in possession of any immovable property and details with regard to the movable property, which was given by him in his application were accepted to be true by the court. He further stated that the financial condition of the petitioner had not changed between the date of the order of a adjudication and the date of moving of this application. The petitioner was a railway servant and has been getting Rs. 330/- as salary, out of which Rs. 150/-were deducted towards loan of Rs. 3000/-taken by the petitioner-appellant out of the provident fund. The petitioner gets Rs. 372/-as the monthly salary out of which Rs. 63/-were deducted as the petitioner had also taken up further loan for treatment of his daughter, who was suffering from tuber culosis. The petitioner had 4 sons and 3 daughters and was only earning member in the family and he is not in a position to pay of his debts. It was, therefore, prayed that unconditional discharge granted to the petitioner. The notices of this application were issued and it was contested by appellant deceased Dhanna Lal. Both the parties produced their evidence in support of their allegations. After hearing both the parties, learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that in view of the evidence of the petitioner he must be regarded to be possessing no such assets whereby he could pay of his debts, as shown in the application for being insolvent and he was, therefore, entitled to get unconditional discharge because the conditions as mentioned in Section 42 of the Act, are not obtained in his case and, therefore, the application of the petitioner was allowed and he was granted an unconditional discharge, vide order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 20. 12. 1975.

(3.) IN the result, the appeal has therefore, become infructuous in view of the order dated 20. 12. 75 and is dismissed accordingly. IN the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. .