PADMANABHAN Vs. HARIHARA IYER
LAWS(KER)-1963-11-14
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 22,1963

PADMANABHAN Appellant
VERSUS
HARIHARA IYER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner, who was the second respondent in I. P. No. 5 of 1953, along with the second respondent here were adjudged insolvents on the application of the first respondent and he has preferred this civil revision petition for quashing the order of adjudication.
(2.)COUNSEL for the first respondent raised a preliminary objection that the order of adjudication is appealable under S. 75 of the provincial Insolvency Act and that a revision from the order of adjudication would not lie. I am satisfied that the preliminary objection must be upheld.
S. 75 (1) reads: "the debtor, any creditor, the receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction by a Court subordinate to a District Court, may appeal to the District Court, and the order of the District Court upon such appeal shall be final: Provided that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made in any appeal decided by the District court was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit: Provided further, that any such person aggrieved by a decision of the District Court on appeal from a decision of a Subordinate Court under S. 4 may appeal to the High Court on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1) of S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. "

Under this section when the order of adjudication is made by a court subordinate to the District Court an appeal lies to the district Court. It is also provided that the High Court may call for the case for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made in appeal was according to law and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. This means that a revision would lie to the High Court only from the appellate order of the District Court. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that under S. 5 the high Court may exercise revisional jurisdiction in respect of orders passed by the court of original jurisdiction. This point came up for consideration in In re P. Iswara Reddy (AIR. 1948 Mad. 520), and it was held that an order which concludes a particular dispute between the parties falls within the words "a decision come to or an order made" in S. 75 (1) and that appeals from such orders should therefore be filed in the District Court. S. 75 is a special provision which provides for revision only from the appellate order and as such the revision petition is incompetent. It seems the petitioner filed this civil revision petition as the time for filing an appeal from the order of adjudication to the District Court had expired. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the matter on the merits. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.