SATISH CHANDRA, J.:- A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Division Bench:

"On a correct interpretation of Section 17 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 where a debtor dies before he has been adjudicated insolvent, can the proceedings of insolvency on an application of the creditor under Section 9 of the said Act continue on substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased debtor and the latter be adjudged insolvent?"

2. Raghunath the respondent made an application under the Provincial Insolvency Act for the adjudication of Sagar as an insolvent. He alleged that a debt of more than Rs.500 was due to him and that Sagar had committed several acts of insolvency. During the pendency of the proceedings Sagar died and his name was deleted from the array of the parties and his son Molhar Singh was substituted. He opposed the petition. He denied the debt and alleged that his father's thumb mark had been obtained on a blank paper. Various other pleas were also taken.

3. The learned Judge repelled the various pleas raised in defence and allowed the application and adjudged Sagar as an insolvent. He directed that the estate of the insolvent shall vest in the Official Receiver and that an application for discharge may be moved within a year.

4. Aggrieved against the order Molhar Singh came to this Court in appeal. At the hearing of the appeal the learned Judge felt doubtful whether the proceedings were maintainable after the death of Sagar. He felt that if the debtor dies before adjudication the proceedings abate because the question or adjudication of a person as an insolvent was a matter personal to him and the right to sue did not survive the death of the debtor. The learned Judge felt doubtful about the applicability of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Piarey Lal v. Salamat Ullah, AIR 1937 All 435 and the correctness of the decision in Ramathai Anni v. K. Kanniappa Mudaliar, AIR 1928 Mad 480. He formulated the question of law mentioned above and referred it for decision by a Division Bench.

5. With respect, the question, has not been properly formulated. The real point for decision is whether the insolvency proceedings abate on the death of a debtor before his adjudication as an insolvent. If they abate, no question of substitution of his heirs would arise and hence there will be no question in the present case of the heirs and legal representatives being adjudged insolvent. If there is no abatement, the adjudication of the heir as an insolvent is not in issue because the Court below has adjudicated the deceased alone, and no party in appeal wants the heir to be so adjudged. In our opinion the question of law that arises in this case is:

"Whether insolvency proceedings abate on the death of the debtor prior to his adjudication as an insolvent."

The aim and purpose of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 like other similar Bankruptcy Laws, is to realise the assets of the debtor and distribute them amongst his creditors. The aim is to afford protection to the debtor and to provide a general benefit to the creditors. After the institution of an insolvency petition proceedings in all other courts are liable to be stayed by virtue of Section 29. After the commencement of the insolvency proceedings the debtor, if under arrest is liable to be released and cannot be arrested in pursuance of any proceedings eleswhere.

6. Section 7 provides for the presentation of an insolvency petition either by a creditor or by a debtor. Section 9 lays down the conditions on which the creditor may present the petition and Section 10 provides the conditions on which the debtor may apply. Section 13 deals with the contents of the petition. Under Section 14 a petition cannot be withdrawn without the leave of the Court. Section 16 provides:-

"Where the petitioner does not proceed with due diligence on his petition, the Court may substitute as petitioner any other cr