MUL CHAND Vs. MURARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of certain proceedings the nature of which has to a certain extent been misconceived both by the courts below and by the appellant in filing this appeal.

(2.) We find that two persons, Nathu Mal and Fakir Chand, had applied in the court of the District Judge of Meerut to be declared insolvents. That court made over the proceeding for disposal to the Second Additional Judge of Meerut, who proceeded to adjudicate Fakir Chand and Nathu Mal insolvents and to appoint a receiver on the 23rd of November, 1912. This receiver, on information laid by one of the creditors, seized certain movable property, i.e. some cash and a stock of cloth, as property of the insolvents in order to dispose of the same for the benefit of the creditors. He was undoubtedly acting under the provisions of Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (Act No. III of 1907), and as a matter of fact in this particular matter he acted under the orders of the District Judge.

(3.) Mul Chand, who is the appellant before us, claims that the property thus seized by the receiver is his own. He presented, in the court below, what purports to be an objection under Order XXI, Rule 58, of the Code of Civil Procedure. This has no application to the circumstances of the case. Mul Chand s position was that of a person aggrieved by an act of the receiver and his remedy was by an application under Section 22 of Act No. III of 1907. His application was, however, dealt with by the Second Additional Judge of Meerut on the merits, and after taking evidence the learned Additional Judge came to the conclusion that the property seized was in fact that of the insolvents, and he dismissed Mul Chand s application accordingly.