RUSTOMJI ARDESHIR COOPER Vs. MADHAVJI DAMODAR THACKERSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Davar of July 24, 1928, refusing to set aside an adjudication order against the appellant which had been made ex parte on July 19, 1928, There is also a companion notice of motion by the appellant of August 25, 1928, asking for all the proceedings to be stayed with liberty to the appellant to manage his property, to recover outstandings and rents, to incur necessary expenses in respect of his immoveable properties, and to file, prosecute and defend suite in his name as if he had not been adjudged an insolvent, and for such other order as to this Court may seem fit.

(2.) Shortly stated, the position is this : The appellant Mr. Cooper, a Parsi, and the respondents Messrs. Madhavji Damodar Thackersey and others Hindus, are carrying on a bitter litigation connected with certain landed property in Bombay, where they are adjoining owners. In the Court of first instance the appellant succeeded. In the Court of Appeal Messrs. Madhavji and others succeeded. There is now an appeal to the Privy Council by Mr. Cooper to restore the judgment of the Court of first instance in his favour and to set aside the judgment of the Appeal Court, The paper-book has been prepared and the case and the record is ready to be sent to their Lordships. The case involves large figures and substantial sums may also be required to be paid as costs by one side or the other according to the final decision of the Privy Council.

(3.) Now, this being the state of affairs and Messrs. Madhavji and others who are the successful parties in the appellate Court having been awarded their costs and having had them taxed at something over Rs. 40,000, proceeded to attach certain property of their opponent, and satisfaction not having been made within the usual period, they then filed an insolvency petition against their opponent and proceeded to apply ex parte for an order of adjudication under Secs.7(e) and 10 of the Act. We are told by counsel who appeared last week for the respondents that they informed the learned Judge that an appeal to the Privy Council was pending. Be that as it may, the learned Judge made the order ex parte.