A mere finding on jurisdiction does not constitute an appealable order under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. These two connected appeals arise out of applications presented to the Court of the District Judge, Anantapur, exercising jurisdiction in insolvency for scaling down the debt due to the appellant in each case in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Belief Act. The appellant in CM.A. No. 606, held a promissory note executed by the insolvent debtor, the respondent in these appeals, and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 607, had obtained a decree against him. Both the creditors had proved their debts but the respondent objected to their payment in full by the Official Receiver on the ground that the debts should be scaled down under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. The Official Receiver overruled the objection and paid the full amount of the principal with interest at six per cent, per annum as provided in Section 48 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Thereupon the respondent filed I.A. Nos. 21 and 31 of 1939 in the Court below praying that the debts should be scaled down and that the sums paid by the Official Receiver in excess of the amounts due as scaled down, should be recovered from the appellants. While these applications were pending, the respondent also applied to the Court for annulment of his adjudication on the ground that all his creditors had been paid in. full, and the adjudication was annulled on the 31st July, 1940. The petitions referred to above were heard on the 6th September, 1940 on the preliminary objection raised by the appellants that the Insolvency Court had no jurisdiction to scale down the debts under Madras Act IV of 1938, and the learned Judge pronounced what is styled an order holding that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the applications and posting them for trial on the merits to 23rd September, 1940. The appellants have brought these appeals with the leave of this Court challenging the correctness of this decision.

2. Mr. V.S. Narasimhachar, the learned Counsel for the respondent, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these appeals on the ground that the so-called order of the lower Court is nothing more than a finding on one of the points arising for determination in the petitions filed by the respondent which still await disposal, and that no appeal lies under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act against a mere finding where it does not lead to or involve a disposal of the matter in which it is made. Sub-section (3) of that section under which these appeals have been filed provides that a person aggrieved by any order other than those specified in Schedule I made by a District Court otherwise than in appeal from an order made by "a Subordinate Court may appeal to the High Court by leave of the District Court or of the High Court, It is argued for the appellants that the Court below having formally expressed its decision upon one of the points for determination in the applications and issued also a decretal order, there is here an order made by a District Court otherwise than in appeal, and that the appeals are therefore competent under the provision referred to above. Our attention was also called to the definition of Order in Section 2, CL (14) of the Civil Procedure Code as "the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree"; and stress was laid on the fact that, while the Code prohibits appeals from orders save as otherwise expressly provided therein (S. 104), Section 75, Sub-section (3) provides for a right of appeal from any original order of a District Court other than those specified in Schedule I. It was therefore urged that no limitation ought to be placed upon appeals from such orders by reading into the provision any restrictive or qualifying words from considerations of expediency.

3. While we are sensible of the difficulty of stating in sufficiently clear-cut and definite terms what is and what is not an order for the purposes of Section 75 of the Provincial Insolven