( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the district Judge, Indore, directing the sale of the property of the petitioner and recovery of the amount due to the respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application before the District Judge. Indore, under section 31 of the State-Financial Corporations Act. 1951, (hereinafter called the act), for the sate of the property of the petitioner which-was mortgaged as equivalent Citation: security for a loan advanced by the respondent to the petitioner. It was alleged that according to the terms of the agreement the petitioner was required to pay off this amount in five equal yearly Instalments starting from 1st March 1965. There was also a term for Payment of interest which was to be a half-yearly payment. and in case of default respondent No. 2 was entitled to recover the whole amount. It is alleged that after the payment of the first instalment, the petitioner paid some amount against the second instalment. But thereafter he failed to pay anything. Consequently the respondent-Corporation gave a notice on 17th September 1968 calling upon the petitioner to pay the whole amount with interest. As the petitioner did not pay the whole amount even after this notice, an application under Section 31 of the Act was filed before the District" Judge on 6th december 1968. In his reply to this application, the petitioner pleaded that he was regular in payment upto 30th June 1966. but later on account of acute shortage of water in Indore there was cut in electric supply and so the petitioner could not run his factory, and it was because of these circumstances that it became impossible for the petitioner to pay the instalments and interest as stipulated. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that as the factory had been closed for the last three years and it was not possible for him to pay the whole amount, he should be granted the facility of instalments.

( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge framed various issues, and by his order dated the 6th September 1969 held that the petitioner could not be permitted to lead evidence to prove his bona fides and the circumstances in which it was not possible for him to pay the instalments. He also held that the petitioner could "not be permitted to lead evidence to establish circumstances justifying an order for instalments. After this order, there being no other dispute, the learned District Judge, by his order dated the 19th November 1968 confirmed the order of attachment, which was issued earlier, and directed that the amount due to the respondent No. 2 be recovered by sale of the property of the petitioner.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the jurisdiction of the learned district Judge while deal-ins with an application under Section 31 of the Act is wide enough and he was hound to investigate into the facts and circumstances pleaded by the petitioner, It was contended that the learned District Judge after investigation into the facts alleged by the petitioner, was even competent to set aside the attachment or also to grant instalments which the Court could do under order 20, Rule 11, Civil P. C. Learned counsel also contended that Sub-section (6)of Sec. 32 of the Act clearly lays down that the provisions contained in the Civil procedure Code would be applicable so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision in Asnew Drums Ltd. v. M. S F. Corpn. . AIR 1972 SC 801 and I. F. Corpn. of India v. Thakur Paper Mills. AIR 1972 Pat 83. Learned counsel also contended that although an appeal under Subsection (91 of Section 32 of the Act could be filed, still on account of some ailment in the petitioner's family no appeal could be filed but on that ground the petition could not be thrown out as apparently the learned District Judge has refused to equivalent Citation: exercise jurisdiction vested in him by