Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS seven Judge Full Bench has been consti tuted to consider the five Judge Full Bench decision of this Court in (1878-80) ILR 2 All 654 (FB) (Reference by the Board of Revenue, N.W.P.)
(2.) MAHABIR Prasad, the applicant, made an application under Section 9, Pro vincial Insolvency Act, for declaration of Peer Bux, opposite party No. 1, as an in-solvant. It was alleged that Peer Bux had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000 from the applicant on 17-1-1967. He had agreed to supply 50 quintals of Rab at Rs. 80 per quintal in lieu of the borrowed sum. It was also agreed that in case of default Peer Bux would pay to the applicant the amount of profits at 50 per cent by way of damages. The transaction was evidenc ed by a deed of agreement and a receipt both dated 17-1-1967. Peer Bux did not supply the Rab as agreed and a sum of Rs. 4,000 was due from him. He had committed an act of insolvency by trans ferring bis property. On the deed of agreement dat ed 17th January, 1967, being produced in Court, Peer Bux filed an objection stating that the document was a bond and was inadmissible in evidence for lack of suffi cient stamp duty. The learned Insolvency Judge upheld the objection. According to him the document was a bond. The applicant was directed to make good the deficiency in stamp duty and to pay the prescribed penalty. Aggrieved, the appli cant came to this Court in revision.
(3.) AT the hearing of the revision reliance was placed upon a 5 Judge Full Bench of this Court in (1878-80) ILR 2 All 654 (FB) in support of the view taken by the learned Insolvency Judge. On be half of the applicant it was urged that this Full Bench decision has been doubted in a number of subsequent decisions of this as well as other High Courts. The learn ed single Judge hearing the revision felt that it was desirable that the question be considered by a larger Bench. His opinion was endorsed by a Division Bench.;