Judgment

Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. - These appeals are connected and raise a common question of law. They come before us on special leave granted by the Pepsu High Court at Patiala under sub-cl. (c) of cl. 1 of Art. 133 of the Constitution.

2. The facts in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1951 are different from those in the other two appeals, and the consequences are different also.

3. The proceedings arise out of the liquidation of two Companies called the Marwari Chamber of Commerce Ltd., (in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1951) and the Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd., (in the other two appeals). The Official Liquidator settled the list of contributories, and after various steps taken before the Liquidation Judge of the High Court by ways of objection on grounds of law as well as on merits, there were payment orders on 4-6-1946 in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1951 and on 18-1-1949 in the latter two appeals.

4. The correctness and the validity of the payment order in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1951 was challenged in appeals taken to the High Court by the Official Liquidator and the contributory. The order of the Liquidation Judge was modified in favour of the Liquidator, and as against a sum of Rs. 4,762-13-3 ordered to be paid, there was an order for the payment of Rs. 24,005-7-3. On further appeal by the contributory to the Judicial Committee, it was held that the appeal to the Division Bench was barred by time, and consequently the judgment of the Bench was set aside, and that of the Liquidation Judge restored. This was on 6-12-1949.

5. In the other two appeals, an application for removal of the name of the contributory was granted by the Liquidation Judge, but on appeal a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this order. On further appeal taken by the Company, the Judicial Committee, Patiala, remanded the case for retrial, and the Liquidation Judge made an order for payment of Rs. 8,191-0-9 on 18-1-1949 as aforesaid.

6. On 2-2-1950 the firm Murari Lal Hari Ram, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1951, filed an application under S. 152, Civil P. C., for amendment of the order of the Liquidation Judge, Kartar Singh, J., alleging that there was a clerical or arithmetical error arising from an accidental slip or emission in that a sum of Rs. 24,005-7-3 was taken as due by the firm instead of the correct figure of Rs. 21,805-7-3. This application was dismissed by the learned Judge on 16-3-1950. The firm applied to him for a certificate for leave to appeal, but this again was dismissed. An appeal was preferred from the order dismissing the amendment petition, but it was thrown out on the ground of want of a certificate from the single Judge. This order is dated 1-5-1950, and is couched in these terms: "We have recently held in Ganpat Rai Hira Lal v. Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce, Ltd., L. P. A. Nos. 493 and 494 of Samvat 2005 (Pepsu) that no appeal lies from an order of a Single Bench to D. B. without a certificate by the Single Judge that the case is a fit one for further appeal. In this case it is admitted that the appellants made an application for a certificate to the single Bench, from whose decision he is appealing, but the same was refused. The appeal is therefore not competent and is dismissed in limine."

7. The reference in the order to the case of Ganpat Rai Hira v. Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd., L. P. A. Nos. 493 & 494 of 2005 St. (Pepsu) is to the order made by the High Court in the connected matter which has given rise to the two Appeals Nos. 167 and 167-A of 1951. There, an appeal was lodged from the payment order of the Liquidation Judge, but it was dismissed on the same ground, namely, want of a certificate from the single Judge.

8. In Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1951, the argument for the appellant is that no certificate from the single Judge is necessary, as the matter is governed not by ordinance 10 of 2005 of the Patiala State but by the Patiala States Judicature Farman E Shahi 1999, Bikrami, under which no certificate is necessary.