JUDGMENT

1. This is a miscellaneous appeal under Section 45, United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, against the order dated 5th January 1938, passed by the Special Judge, First Grade, Kheri, allowing a claim by a creditor to be admitted, though filed after the period allowed by Sub-section (3) of Section 9. Notice was published in the Gazette under Section 9 of the Act on 4th January 1936, and under Section 11 on 23rd January 1937. A written statement was filed by the respondent on 22nd July 1937. The Special Judges admitted this written statement, though filed beyond the period provided in Sub-section (3), because the full address of the respondent had not been given under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, and consequently the copy of the notice sent to him by registered post had not been delivered to him. The Special Judge was of opinion that as the applicant had not complied with all the requirements of the law he must be held responsible for the non-service of the notice on the creditor. It is admitted that though a copy of the notice was sent by registered post to the respondent's address as given by the applicant, it was not delivered to him, and it is also admitted that only the name of the mohalla, Banarsi Bagh, was given, and not also the number of the house. It would appear that the letter was not delivered because the address given was insufficient. The respondent is a minor, aged 10 years, and was living with his mother, who has represented him in the case as his guardian. He and his mother are said to have come to Banarsi Bagh, Lucknow, from Lakhimpur about a year before.

2. We have been referred to certain rulings bearing on Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, but they are not very relevant. In Ashraf v. L. Saith Mal AIR 1938 All 47 the Allahabad High Court held that no further period can be allowed than that provided in Sub-section (3) of Section9 of the Act, but in this case it appears that the applicant had furnished all necessary information. In Kazim Husain v. Mubarak Jahan Begam (1939) 26 AIR Oudh 227 this Court held that the deliberate omission of a debt from the debtor's written statement would justify an extension of the time allowed to the creditor concerned under Sub-section (3). The present case is not on all fours with this case. It is not suggested that there was any deliberate omission in the applicant's written statement. But there was certainly negligence on his part if, either knowing the creditor's full address or being able to ascertain it, he omitted to give it. There is nothing to show either that the full address was not known to the applicant or that, if it was not known to him, he could not have ascertained it. Presumably as he knew that the respondent lived in this mohalla, it would not have been difficult for him to ascertain the number of the house where he resided. We are unable to find therefore that the appellant complied with the requirements of the law, and we do not consider that the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 come into operation unless the applicant has given sufficient particulars (provided that they can be ascertained) to enable the notice to be served by registered post on the creditor. We are of opinion that the lower Court was justified on this ground in allowing the respondent to file his written statement after the period provided in Sub-section (3), and we dismiss this appeal with costs.