NEELAM VENKATA NAGAYYA Vs. MATTE SITARAMAYYA BEING OF UNSOUND MIND
LAWS(APH)-1955-2-14
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 15,1955

NEELAM VENKATA NAGAYYA Appellant
VERSUS
MATTE SITARAMAYYA BEING OF UNSOUND MIND BY GUARDIAN M.SURYANARAYANA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M A JALEEL SAHIB VS. SEENIAPPA RAMASWAMI MUDALIAR AND CO [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a revision against the order of the Court of the District Judge, East Godavari, adding the first respondent as the 2nd petitioner in I.A. No.37 of 1944.
(2.)The Official Receiver sold the property of the insolvent to the petitioner on 10th May, 1944, for a sum of Rs. 1038 subject to mortgage of about Rs. 15,000. Gollapalli Venkatachelam alias Tatabbayi filed I.A.No.37 of 1944 on I4th April, 1944, for setting aside the sale held by the Official Receiver. To that application, he impleaded the purchaser, i.e., the petitioner and the Official Receiver as respondents. On 26th August, 1945, I.A.No.48 of 1945 was filed before the Official Receiver to expunge the name of Tatabbayi from the schedule of creditors on the ground that he was a bogus creditor. On 24th October, 1945, the Official Receiver dismissed that application with a direction that the question may be agitated before the Insolvency Court. Thereafter, the same applicant filed on 26th November, 1945, I.A.No.30 of 1945 before the Insolvency Court for the same relief . On 6th February, 1951, the Insolvency Court held that the said debt was not genuine and, on that finding expunged the name of Tatabbayi from the schedule of creditors. When an appeal was filed against the said order, that was also dismissed.
(3.)Matte Sitaramayya, the first respondent filed I.A. No. 23 of 1945 on the file of the Insolvency Court on ist October, 1945, i.e., when I.A. No. 48 of 1945 was pending before the Official Receiver. It is alleged in the affidavit filed by the respondent that Tatabbayi and the purchaser were colluding together and settling the matter out of Court and that, if that was allowed to be done, it would result in loss to the general body of creditors. On those allegations, he was sought to be impleaded as a party. Those allegations were denied by the petitioner in the counter filed by him. The learned Subordinate Judge of Kakinada dismissed that application on the ground that the application was not maintainable and also for the reason that the alleged collusion had not been proved. On appeal, the learned District Judge took a different view. He held that Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, empowers the Insolvency Court to add a party in the circumstances of the case and also that it was a fit case for exercising the discretion of the Court by adding him as a party. The purchaser filed the above revision aginst that order. Mr. B.V.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised before me three points : (i) Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, has no application to proceedings taken under section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. (ii) Even if the said order applies, the conditions laid down thereunder are not complied with. (iii) In any view, the Judge should not have added a new party without finding that there was a collusion between Tatabbayi and the purchaser. Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a complete answer to the first argument of the learned counsel. It reads : "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court in regard to proceedings under this Act, shall have the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction."
;


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