The Insolvency Court has authority over the property of the insolvent, and the timing of bringing suits related to the insolvent's property is crucial.

Prideaux—This is a revision arising out of Insolvency proceedings. On 16-6-1917 Sheoram Laxman applied to the Insolvency Court for being made an insolvent. Before that on 29-5-1917 he and his brother Jairam had transferred a half share in Survey No. 37 of Mouza Bramhi to one Mt. Moti Begum; the remaining half of the field is said to be owned by Sheoram's cousin one Purnaji. Sheoram was adjudged an insolvent on 10-11-1917. The present applicants held a Small Cause Court decree dated 19-4-1917 against Sheoram and on 30-5-1917 in execution of the decree attached the field. Objections were raised to that attachment by Mt. Moti Begum because she bought half the field and by Purnaji because he said that a half belonged to him. Those objections were allowed and the field was released from attachment.

2. Applicants then sued making Sheoram, his brother Jairam and Purnaj and Moti Begum parties for a declaration that the field was liable to be attached and sold in execution of their Small Cause Court decree against Sheoram. The suit was dismissed on 7-10-1919 and the dismissal was confirmed in appeal and the case was fixed for disposal to-day as second appeal No. 182-B of 1920.

3. It has been held in that litigation that the decree obtained by applicants against Sheoram was not binding on Jairam, or Purnaji. or on their shares in the fields and the sale to Moti Begum by Sheoram and Jairam was a bona fide transaction. On 14-8-1919 the applicants applied to the Insolvency Court for the same relief which they claimed in the litigation. They had proved their debt in that Court: the Insolvency Court has held that the decision in the regular suit works as res judicata and therefore the matter could not be gone into in the Insolvency proceedings. An appeal against that decision having failed the present application for revision has been filed.

4. Now it seems to me that under S. 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act then in force, the Court making the order of adjudication is vested with the whole property, and no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable under the Insolvency Act has any remedy against the property of the Insolvent person in respect of that debtor legal proceedings except with the leave of the Court and on such terms as the Court may impose.

5. The adjudication dates back to and has effect from 16th June, 1917 while the date of the plaint in declaratory suit was 23-9-1918; therefore the present applicants could not bring that suit except with the leave of the Insolvency Court and that permission is contingent on the suit being brought and cannot be given afterwards. That being so those proceedings seems to me ultra vires.

6. This case discloses a curious position. Once an objection has been allowed it is final unless a suit is brought within a year under O. 21, R. 63. The lower Court must decide whether the order in the objection case is good law; was it passed before or after the date the adjudication goes back to? If passed afterwards, the effect of the vesting order is clear; the attaching creditor has no priority over the Official Assignee and the latter is entitled to claim the attached property for the benefit of the attaching and other creditors of the insolvent. If in the present case the order. In the objection case is good then any suit plaintiff could bring with the permission of the Insolvency Court to challenge it, is being long time barred. If the order is bad, the question arises how far had execution got when Sheoram was made bankrupt and what steps are now necessary? The suit brought by the plaintiff could not have been brought except with the permission of the Insolvency Court and the proceedings are void and do not constitute res judicata. I have to day in second appeal disposed of civil suit. I now set aside the order of the Courts below and direct that Insolvency Court re-take on its file the application of 14-8-1919 and dispose of it afresh. The costs here will abide the