( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal under the second proviso or, in the alternative, a revision under the first proviso, to Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. by the three creditors Abdul shakur, Abdul Rashid and Abdul Wahid, against. the appellate decision of the learned District judge of Kanpur, dated 18-12-1951, whereby the order of the Insolvency Judge under Section 68, dated 12-4-1948, directing the debts due to the present appellants to be scheduled under section 33 of the Act, was set aside and that of the Official Receiver, dated 1-4-1946, dismissing the claims, of the present appellants restored.

( 2 ) THE present creditors applied for the insolvency of the respondent Kotwaleshwar Prasad on 11-8-1936 on foot of three pronotes in, their favour aggregating Rs. 22. 500 in value. The petition for insolvency was opposed by the debtor, but eventually it was allowed on 8-10-1937 on an admission of the debtor himself. An interim receiver was appointed and, under the powers delegated to him under Section 80 of the Act, he proceeded to frame a schedule of debts under section 33. In those proceedings the debts set up by the present creditors were impugned by the insolvent and also by a creditor named Abdul Sayeed.

( 3 ) WHILE the said enquiry was being held, the insolvent applied under Section 35 for annulment of the order of adjudication on 27-5-1939 on the ground, inter alia, that he made the said statement, on the basis of which the order of adjudication had been passed, while under the influence of drink. This application oi his was rejected by the Insolvency Judge on 11-8-1939.

( 4 ) THE Official Receiver rejected the claim of the creditor Abdul Sayeed. As regards the contest of the insolvent, he brushed it aside on the ground that he could not go behind the order of adjudication which had been passed on the admission of the insolvent himself. In the result, the official Receiver scheduled the debts of the present creditors by an order dated 8-11-1940. On an appeal by the insolvent under Section 68, the Insolvency Judge held that the order of adjudication was no bar to the debts in question being enquired into, and he therefore remanded the case for a fresh enquiry by an order dated 14-10-1942. The creditors appeal against that order was dismissed by the District Judge on 7-8-1943 and by this Court on 30-11-1943. It was as a result of this fresh enquiry on remand that the said order dated 1-4-1946 was passed by the official Receiver, dismissing the claim of the present creditors, which has led up to the present second appeal or revision, as the case may be.

( 5 ) OF the three creditors two, Abdul Shakur and Abdul Wahid, are evacuees. Besides the insolvent, there are two other respondents, the Official Receiver of Kanpur and the Assistant custodian of Evacuee Property, Kanpur. The last named represented the estate of the two evacuee-creditors. The three creditors and the Assistant Custodian made a common cause, and the appeal was opposed only by the insolvent. No appearance was put in on behalf of the Official receiver. In fact, after the rejection of the claim of Abdul Sayeed creditor, the contest with regard to the present debts lay only between the insolvent Kotwaleshwar Prasad on the one hand and the creditors Abdul Shakur, Abdul Rashid and Abdul Wahid on the other.

( 6 ) APART from the question, to be considered later, whether the findings in the judgment under appeal are open to challenge, there was a preliminary point raised by the learned counsel for the insolvent respondent as to whether this should be heard as a second appeal or a revision. The decision of the Court below has been impugned, as will appear presently, on the ground that it is contrary to law. That is a ground which is common to both a revision and a second appeal under section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The distinction sought to be drawn is therefore without a difference and need not detain us any further.

( 7 ) THE l