The order of discharge under Section 44(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act frees the insolvent from liability for debts but does not free the property from such liability.

Pollock, J—The insolvents were adjudged insolvent on their own petition, and on June 23, 1933, they were granted an order of absolute discharge. In the insolvency petition in the list of property possessed by the petitioners three houses were mentioned, and under Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, these houses vested in the insolvency Court. These houses were Dever sold as the creditors neglected to take steps to get them sold. On May 2, 1935, nearly two years after the order of absolute discharge had been passed, a creditor applied to the Insolvency Court to have these houses sold. That application has been allowed.

2. Under Section 44(2) of the Act an order of discharge shall release the insolvent from all debts provable under the Act. The learned Judge has stated that this sub-section does not apply but he has given no reasons for saying, so. The position has, I think, been correctly explained, if I may say so with due respect, by Mitter, J. in Arjun Das v. Marchia Telini, 1936 AIR(Cal) 434. There is no provision that property which is vested in the Insolvency Court should re-vest in the insolvent on the passing of the order of absolute discharge and 1 do not think that it was ever contemplated that an insolvent should get an order of absolute discharge and yet retain part of his property. Section 44(2).is, explained by Mitter, J. as meaning that the order of discharge frees the insolvent from liability for all debts provable under the Act but does not free his properly from such liability. It is the principle of the Act that the creditors are entitled to look only to those assets which vested in the Court by reason of the adjudication and their claims are transferred from one fund to another. The property then vested in the Court and this property would still be liable for his debts though the insolvent himself is no. longer liable. On that principle the application of the creditor was rightly allowed.

3. It has been argued that the creditors were guilty of laches in not applying earlier and that the application ought to have been dismissed on that ground. It has been conceded that there is no question of limitation involved, and it does not appear to me that the Insolvency Court had any discretion to refuse to sell the property that had vested in it.

4. The application for revision is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 10.

Final Result : Dismissed