CHALLA ABBIREDDI Vs. CHALLA VENKATA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1 respondent herein was adjudicated an insolvent in I. P. No. 46 of 1920 on the file of the District Court of Guntur. As he failed to apply for discharge within the time fixed his adjudication was annulled. The petitioners are some of the creditors and they applied to the District Court to have the order of annulment reviewed. The learned Judge thought that the petitioners had a good case on the merits, but declined to grant the review as he thought that he had no power to review an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. The petitioners have preferred this revision petition against his order.

(2.) Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, Act V of 1920, says: Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court, in regard to proceedings under this Act, shall have the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction.

(3.) The Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction has power to review its orders. There is no warrant for the proposition that a civil Court cannot correct its own orders or cannot modify any order which it has passed when it finds that the order is patently wrong. The power of review is inherent in the civil Court and in what cases it can be exercised is laid down in Order 47. When an insolvency Court has the same powers and follows the same procedure as a civil Court exercising ordinary orginal civil jurisdiction it cannot reasonably be contended that the power to review has been taken away. Under the English Bankruptcy Act the power to review is specifically given: vide Section 108. Such provision is not specifically enacted in the Provincial Insolvency Act as the insolvency Court is invested with jurisdiction which an ordinary civil court has in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.