1. This appeal raises a point under the Insolvency Act which one would expect to have occurred on a great number of occasions if the point made by the appellant is a good one. The short facts may be stated thus. Let A be the mortgagor and B the mortgagee. The mortgage had a covenant requiring the mortgagor to pay to the mortgagee the debt so that the mortgagee was in the position of a secured and an ordinary creditor. A became an insolvent. B did not act under Section 47, Provincial Insolvency Act, but ignored the Insolvency Court and proceeded to realize his security which security proved insufficient to meet the mortgage debt. The result was that only Rs. 2140 were realized and that more than Rs. 6000 remained due. The mortgage was in 1923. The first sale in execution of part of the security took place on 23rd February 1929 and fetched Rs. 600. The sale of a farther part of the security took place on 21st March 1930 and fetched Rs. 1540 and the sale was confirmed on 22nd April 1930. In the meantime, on 7th November 1929, the insolvent was discharged. The mortgagee then in execution sought to recover the balance of Rs. 6000 odd and the lower Court has held that the debt ha