KRISHNALAL JANKIPRASAD Vs. HYATHKHAN SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insolvency petition was grounded on the sale by the debtor in favour of his wife though it was alleged to be a nominal and collusive transaction intended to delay and defeat the creditors, and what is prayed for is leave to insert a paragraph in the petition that even if the Court should hold that the debts referred to in the sale-deed are true, the transfer would nevertheless be a fraudulent preference which is void as against the receiver. Such an amendment is permissible: vide In re Phillips Baston Ex parte (1900) 2 QB 329 and Mahomed Ayyub Sahib V/s. J.P. Gunnis & Co. (1913) 37 Mad 555; and as pointed out in Charan Das V/s. Amir Khan AIR 1921 PC 50 in appropriate cases leave to amend can be granted even though the amendment is asked for after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for the main proceeding. Under the circumstances leave to amend the petition was rightly granted in this case by the Subordinate Judge and the order of the District Judge cannot be upheld. It is therefore set aside and the order of the Subordinate Judge is restored. THE petitioner will however pay the costs of the respondent in this proceeding in all the Courts.