JUDGMENT

1. It is impossible to support the order in this case. In the first place, the learned Judge acted upon his own motion without any proceedings on behalf of the Receiver calling upon the Court to adjudicate as to this mortgage between the estate and the mortgagee. We do not wish to say anything to discourage the intervention of the Court in insolvency matters where no Receiver is appointed, and the duty of the Court is to be astute to look after the insolvency proceedings so as to ascertain whether anything can be saved for the creditors, but where a Receiver is appointed and he is a gentleman of legal training, as in this case a Vakil, it is better to leave him to take the initiatory steps for a proceeding of this kind, which is a serious matter and in the nature of a suit.

2. The only notice which the mortgagee got, seems to have been a verbal notice in Court in a proceeding in which he was not in the least concerned, or at any rate in respect of which he had received no specific notice. He not unnaturally, when called upon to defend his legal position, desired the assistance of a legal gentleman. The learned Judge gave him the opportunity, if it can be called one, of askin