KHEMKARANDAS JOKHIRAM Vs. CHOUTHMAL BHAGIRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Creditors Nos. 2 and 3. namely, Khemkarandas Jokhiram and Gouridut Ganesh Lal, made an application to the District Judge in certain insolvency- proceedings that the debt of Chouthmal Bhagirath (creditor No. 1) should be expunged or reduced. This application purported to be under Section 50, Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned Judge in the Court below has dismissed the application not on its merits but on the ground that they had opportunities from time to time to question the debt of creditor No. 1 and that therefore they had now lost their aright. The learned Judge goes so far as to say: I consider therefore that the petitions are merely vexatious, being a belated attempt to destroy the effect of the High Court order.

(2.) There have been a number of orders passed by this Court in the insolvency proceedings but only one of those need I make any reference to. The matter did come before the Court, which consisted of Adami, J., and myself, on 24 April 1930, but nothing arises from that judgment. But at a later stage it came before the learned Chief Justice and Mohamad Noor, J. I refer to that judgment for the reason that a statement by Mohamad Noor, J., delivering the judgment of the Court, has been relied upon by Dr. Mitter appearing on behalf of the appellants for certain contentions to which I shall more particularly refer.

(3.) The argument in this appeal proceeded on the consideration of the events which had happened during the course of these proceedings and the question whether delay in making the application under Section 50, Provincial Insolvency Act was an obstacle to the application made by Dr. Mitter's clients. Speaking for myself, I was not aware of an order which was made on 14 June 1927, or to put it perhaps more accurately, it was not present to my mind in the earlier part of the argument although Dr. Mitter in the opening had given us that date as the date on which the adjudication was annulled. The moment we find that fact to exist, the questions which have been argued before us in my judgment do not arise.