The Government Pleader (K. Kuttikrishna Menon) on behalf of the Government.

(On an order of reference to a Bench by Govinda Menon, J., dated 20th January, 1948, this petition coming on for hearing, the Court made the following)

ORDER: The officiating Chief Justice.-The question for decision is whether appeals lie to the District Court of Kurnool from two orders made by the Subordinate Judge of Kurnool, viz., an order granting an application made under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, praying that certain aliences from the insolvent may be added as party respondents to an insolvency application, and an order execusing delay in filing the former application. Two revision petitions have been filed inn this Court against the said two orders, and they will be incomepent if appeals lie to the District Court.

These two orders were passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in the course of an insolvency application. They must therefore be deemed to have been passed in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act specifically provides for appeals and revision petitions against orders made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. Under section 75(1), the debtor, any creditor, the receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction by a Court subordinate to a District Court, may appeal to the District Court, and the order of the District Court upon such appeal shall be final. If the orders in question are orders made or amount to decisions come to in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, then certainly appeals lie against them to the District Court.

It was contended by Mr. Chandra Reddi on behalf of the petitioners section 75 has to be read with section 5 of the Act, which prescribes that the Court in regard to proceedings under the Act, shall have the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as it respectively has and follows in regard to civil suits. This provision makes, as it were, the entire Code of Civil Procedure, so the argument ran, applicable to the proceedings in insolvency, including the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeals. It follows that unless an order is appealable under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision, an appeal will not lie from a Subordinate Court to a District Court or from a District Court to the High Court under section 75. In the case of the two applications before us, there can be no doubt that treated as orders under the Code of Civil Procedure appeals do not lie under Order XLIII or any other provision of the Code. We do not, however, agree with this contention. It is not necessary to decide how far section 5 confers revisional jurisdiction on this Court, but in our opinion it is clear that section 5 cannot override the provisions of section 75 in so far as the latter section confers a right of appeal in any instance. It is not permissible to read the provisions of section 75 with a further modification that the provisions are subject to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in regard to appeals. The only question, therefore, is whether the orders made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Kurnool are orders made or decisions come to in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. If they are, appeals lie to the District Court. Though several decisions were cited before us, both of this Court and other Courts, we have been unable to derive much assistance as to the test to be applied to determine whether a particular order falls within section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The decision of a Bench of this Court in Lakshmappa v. Venkatareddi1was cited to us, in which it was held that an order merely holding that the Insolvency Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application was not appealable under section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned Judges say that while they are sensible of the difficulty of sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document