FIRM DEBICHAND LAKSHMI NARAIN Vs. RADHEY RAMAN (INSOLVENT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by firm Debi Chand Lakshmi Narain under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act.

(2.) The facts leading to this revision are these. The applicant made an application on 5 July 1989 for declaring Radhey Raman an insolvent. Radhey Raman was declared insolvent on this application on 23 of April 1940 and was ordered to apply for his discharge within two years. It seems, however, that the administration of the estate took more than two years. Eventually in, February 1943, the applicant tendered proof of his debt in the manner provided by Section 49 (1), Insolvency Act sending by post in a registered letter, to the Court, an affidavit verifying the debt. On 313t August 1943, the Court, under Section 33 (1), Insolvency Act, held that the debt of the applicant had been proved and ordered it to be entered in the schedule of creditors. On 23 November 1944, however, the receiver made an application under Section 50, Insolvency Act, praying that the debt of the applicant had been improperly entered in the Schedule of creditors and the Court should either expunge the entry or reduce the amount of the debt. Thereupon, the applicant was ordered to produce his books of accounts before the receiver and he did so in December 1944. The matter came up before the receiver, for the last time, on 25 December 1944, and the accounts were shown to him and he was to submit a report to the Court thereafter. The matter was then adjourned to 6 January 1945. The case came up before the Court on 6 January and the applicant and his counsel were absent. Thereupon the Court ordered the expunction of the entry relating to the applicant from the schedule of creditors. Then the receiver made a report for the discharge of the insolvent opposite party. Therefore, on 9 January 1945 the Court ordered an absolute discharge of the insolvent, Radhey Raman as all the other creditors could be paid in full out of the money in the hands of the receiver and a sum of Rs. 2,000 would remain in surplus to be returned to the insolvent under Section 67, Insolvency Act. It seems that the applicant came to know about this discharge on 10 January 1945. He then made an application for restoration of his claim in the schedule and later, also filed an appeal. His restoration application was dismissed in April 1945, but his appeal was allowed in May 1945. Thereafter the insolvency Court again went into the question whether the applicant debt should remain on the schedule or should be expunged or should be reduced. Finally, on 22 September, 1945, the insolvency Court ordered that a sum of Rs. 4,65l/l/- was due to the applicant on the date of the insolvency application. It went on to say that this should be entered in the schedule of creditors and the receiver was directed to distribute the money, according to law, to the creditors who had proved their debts including the applicant This order was wrongly worded inasmuch as the debt was not to be entered in the schedule of creditors as it had already been entered therein. What the insolvency Court really ordered was that the amount already entered in the schedule should be reduced to Rs. 4,651/1/-.

(3.) Against this order, no creditor appealed. But the insolvent filed an appeal because he was likely to lose a sum of Rs. 2,000 or so which he would otherwise have got, if the debt of the applicant had not been included. The learned Judge of the Court below allowed the appeal of the insolvent holding that as an order of absolute discharge had been passed on 9 January 1945 and there was no appeal against that order, the applicant could not prove his debt after an order of discharge. The applicant has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court against this order.