Y. B. SURYAVANSHI, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Gopal Prasad Chourasia is challenging the orders dt. 13-02-1985, passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Chhindwara holding that the "revision" filed against the order passed by the First Civil Judge, Class I, Chhindwara, in Insolvency Case No. 6/55 is not maintainable. (ii) The Insolvency Court in the orders dt. 13-08-1984, while dealing with the objection of the petitioner whether this petitioner has a right of pre-emption and accordingly whether he is a person aggrieved by the act of the Receiver (respondent 1 - then Guru Prasad Shrivastava, Advocate - now substituted by his L. R. Shri Prabanna Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate) inter alia, held that the order challenged by the petitioner Gopal Prasad Chourasia could be decided on the basis of the documents filed by him and no oral evidence is necessary to decide that matter. (iii) The learned Addl. Judge in the order dt. 13-02-1985 held, that the orders passed by the Court of Insolvency are appealable under S. 75 and therefore, no revision lies. In the alternative it was also held that in the interlocutory order passed by the Civil Judge, he was of the view that in the light of documentary evidence, oral evidence is not necessary, and moreover, u/s. 68, Insolvency Act, such Court cannot be compelled to take oral evidence or additional evidence and for this reason also, the revision is not maintainable. That seems to be the import of the impugned orders challenged in this petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the impugned order dt. 13-02-85 by Additional District Judge but did not file copies of other order sheets, including the impugned orders passed by the Civil Judge dt. 13-08-1984. However, other documents have been filed in the returns separately filed on behalf of respondent 1 (Receiver), respondent 2 Sakibali Khan (purchaser), and respondent 3 Shri J. Saran (accused of having colluded with the Receiver in the insolvency proceedings.) On a perusal of the petition, the abovesaid returns and copies of documents filed, more particularly by the respondents, the following relevant circumstances emerge. (I) The Insolvency Case No. 6/55 is still pending in the Insolvency Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Chhindwara in respect of the insolvent late Jugnu Bai. Shri Guru Prasad Shrivastava (original respondent No. 1) was appointed as Receiver of the property. The petitioner, Gopal Prasad Chourasia is a tenant of the part of the house, and it seems according to the return, which gives more details, he was inducted as such sometime in August or Sept. 1968 on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/ -. (II) Since no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in view of Annexure-2-R/6, the present petitioner Gopal Prasad Chourasia seems to have filed an application addressed to the Receiver dt. 26-08-1968 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Chhindwara stating that he agrees to take the house, on monthly rent on terms and conditions which include that the monthly rent would be Rs. 40/- with an agreement to let it off for 10 years; that he shall pay municipal taxes from the date of agreement; that he will undertake repair which would be done through some person of the Receiver and at the time of vacating the building, he will be reimbursed in cash; in case that is not done, he will be entitled to remove the materials from the building; that there shall be an advance deposit of Rs. 320/-, being eight months' rent, and in case the landlord did not receive rents by 10th of any month, he will adjust it from the advance deposit; that in case he failed to pay rent after getting the whole amount of advance adjusted, he could be ejected even before the expiry of ten years. (III) It further seems from Annexure-2-R/2 that Sakibali Khan (respondent No. 2-purchaser) filed an application stating details of certain parcels of land sold by the receiver, which sales have been confirmed by the C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document