The Court established that it had the jurisdiction to review, rescind, or vary any order made under its insolvency jurisdiction, and that Section 23 did not bar it from doing so.

Vere Mockett, Officiating C.J.

1. The appellant is the insolvent. The first respondent is one Chockalingam Chetti, his cousin brother. The second respondent, the Official Assignee of Madras, is formally on the record. The Official Assignee on the 22nd December, 1942, took out an application for directions before the learned Insolvency Judge with regard to the disposition of properties which "according to the insolvent and also to Chockalingam Chetty, represent properties which, under an oral partition, were allotted to the insolvents share" as well as other properties. One of those properties is to be found in item 4 of Schedule A which is a half share in 9 Devathi Pilliar Koil Street, Pulicat. With that house, I am concerned and I will call that house "the Pulicat House." The learned Judge on the 11th January, 1943, directed the Official Assignee to sell the properties in the schedules to the application before him and the Pulicat House was included. The Official Assignee came before the Court with a further application on the 15th April, 1943, and he said in paragraph (c) of his report that with regard to the Pulicat House the insolvent and Chockalingam Chetti were entitled to a half share each, that an offer had been received from Chockalingam Chetti for Rs. 300 and that he had reports that it was worth more; and he asked for directions as to whether the house might be sold. Chockalingam Chetti in his affidavit in reply to the Official Assignees report said in paragraph 5 that he was "prepared to abide by any fair price which the Official Assignee or this Honourable Court may suggest.

2. The learned Judges judgment of the 19th April, 1943 was as follows:

Having regard to the fact that the Pulicat House is stated to be the family house to continue in occupation of which Chockalingam Chetti will have a natural desire, I am of the opinion that it need not be sold but that Chockalingam should pay to the estate a half share of its value on the basis that the property is worth Rs. 1,500.

3. The order followed the learned Judges judgment and said that the "house at Pulicat shall not be sold but the said K.S.R. Chockalingam Chetti do pay to the Official Assignee a sum of Rupees seven hundred and fifty only representing a,half share of its value." This order has led to subsequent proceedings.

4. On the 31st May, a Notice of Motion was filed by the insolvent in which he asked under Section 8(1) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act that the Insolvency Court should vary the order of the 19th April. He pointed out that owing to the sale of other properties and other circumstances he was in a position to pay sixteen annas in the rupee to his creditors and that therefore it was not necessary to sell the Pulicat House; and he asked that the order of the 19th April, should be varied by directing the Official Assignee not to execute any conveyance in respect of the same. In fact his expectations were realised and quite apart from the Pulicat House sixteen annas in the. rupee was paid to the creditors. On the 23rd August, the parties appeared before the learned Judge and there were a number of applications in the 11st. The last application was for annulment by the insolvent. The Official Assignee who is before us today states that he did not file a report in the present application which is No. 647 of 1943 but he was before the learned Judge and gave him all the information he desired. The outstanding fact was that on that date, the 23rd August, the creditors had been paid in full and that the only question to be considered and with which we are now concerned was whether a house which now belonged to a man who in a matter of minutes would be solvent, should be sold. If it had been sold, the money would have been paid to the Official Assignee who would have at once handed it over to the (lately) insolvent. The learned Judge took the view that he would not go back on his order of the 19th April, "which was passed after taking into account