We consider it desirable that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The appeal raises more than one question of general importance under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and in regard to one of the points the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras1, which has been applied to the case by the learned trial Judge, in our opinion, requires reconsideration.

Judgment.

Satyanarayana Rao, J.-This appeal was heard by the Officiating Chief Justice (Rajamannar, O.C.J., as he then was) and myself on the 4th February, 1948, and as we felt that the decision of a Bench of this Court in Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras1, which was followed by the learned trial Judge required reconsideration, we referred the matter to be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The order we then made is as follows:

“We consider it desirable that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The appeal raises more than one question of general importance under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and in regard to one of the points the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras1, which has been applied to