The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the court to conduct the enquiry itself under Section 26 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and the limitations of a non-Official Receiver in taking evidence.

1. In this case the District Judge of Bellary has, under Section 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, Act III of 1907, directed that the entries relating to the debts purported to be owing to creditors Nos. 5 to 11 in the schedule filed by the insolvent be expugned, Several amounts are alleged to be due on promissory-notes executed by the insolvent on various dates in 1910, 1911 and 1912: on the debtors own petition the adjudication was made some time in 19-3 and in his petition he entered these debts in the schedule. There is a creditor named Matta Gattayya who claims to be entitled to a large amount under a decree obtained by him against the Insolvent, The winding up of the estate was delayed owing to some suits filed by certain persons claiming to be mortgagees and it appears that in 1918 the Receiver made a report to the District Judge asking, among other things, for directions as to whether the debts now in question had been proved. The creditor Gattayya had also made a similar application alleging that all these debts are false and fictitious. The Receiver is not an, Official Receiver appointed by the Local Government under the Act. The District Judge sailed upon the creditors Nos. 5 to 11 to prove their debts. They filed affidavits in support of their claims, and the District Judge, instead of calling for evidence in proof of their claims, asked the Receiver to take any evidence which might be adduced by these creditors and submit such evidence to him. He fays that this procedure was agreed to by the parties. The Receiver examined a number of witnesses and submitted their evidence to the Judge bat without expressing his own opinion of the evidence adduced before him. The District Judge, upon perusal of the evidence and after hearing the arguments of the parties, held that these debts were not duly proved, in the circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that the learned District Judge adopted a proper procedure in delegating the taking of the evidence to the Receiver and acting upon that evidence and deciding the case without himself having even the advantage of the report from the Receiver as to his estimation of the evidence of the witnesses who deposed before him.

2. Section 26 says that the District Judge will decide upon the claim after such enquiry as the Court might think necessary. That, prima facie, suggests that the enquiry should be held by the Court itself and in cases where there is no Official Receiver authorised under Section 52(4) of the Act to admit or reject proofs of creditors. In any event, the Judge thought it advisable that evidence should be recorded by the Receiver he ought to have taken the prosecution to and the Receiver to report to the opinion formed by him of that evidence. Here there were a number of persons claiming to be creditors of the insolvent and some of their claims are for substantial amounts. It seems to me that it would have been more satisfactory if the district Judge had examined the witnesses himself so that we might have the advantage of his opinion as to what he thought of the witnesses. It is not satisfactory that the Court should have to come to a conclusion as to the reliability of the evidence without having the witnesses. I would, therefore, set aside the order of the district Judge and remand the case to the District Judge of Anantapur for proper enquiry under Section 26, so that he might enquire into the case as required by law in the light of the above observations and dispose of the matter.

3. It must also be pointed out that the district Judge had admitted into evidence the public examination of the insolvent recorded under Section 14. That, no doubt, as laid down in that section, forms part of the record, but it is not relevant evidence in an enquiry held under Section 26. This is clearly laid down in a ruling in Brunntr beard of Trade, Ex parte (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 572 : 56 L.J.Q.B. 606 : 57 L.T. 48, 35 W.R. 719 : 4, Morrell 265. by Mr. Justice Cave. The o