JUDGMENT

Ghulam Hasan J - This is a miscellaneous appeal under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act, against the appellate order of the District Judge of. Unao dated 1st December 1938, reversing the decision of the Civil Judge of Unao and allowing the appeal of the creditor in an application for insolvency. It appears that one Dullu son of Durga Chamar, applied for being declared an insolvent. The application was contested by a creditor Misri Lal, respondent 1, on the ground that the applicant was not an insolvent inasmuch as his debts did not amount to Rs. 500 as required by Section 10(1)(a), Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned civil Judge adjudged the applicant as insolvent. Misri Lal creditor went up in appeal to the District Judge who set aside the decision of the civil Judge holding that the applicant was not an insolvent and dismissed his application for insolvency. The applicant Dullu has filed this miscellaneous appeal purporting to be under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent, Misri Lal that a second appeal is not entertainable. I am of opinion that this objection is well founded and must prevail. Section 75(1) lays down:

The debtor, any creditor, the receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction by a Court subordinate to a District Court may appeal to the District Court, and the order of the District Court upon such appeal shall be final.

2. This section is made subject to two provisos. The first proviso gives a right to the High Court to call for the case for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order in any appeal decided by the District Court was according to law. In other words, it gives, as it were, a right of interference by way of revision. The second proviso confers a right of second appeal only against the appellate decision of a District Court from the decision of the subordinate Court under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act. Section 4, Insolvency Act, lays down:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court shall have full power to decide all questions whether of title or priority, or of any nature whatsoever, and whether involving matters of law or of fact, which may arise in any case of insolvency coming within the cognizance of the Court, or which the Court may deem it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of doing complete justice or making a complete distribution of property in any such case.

3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the civil Judge was under Section 4 while it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the decision was under Section 25 of the Act. The words, "of any nature whatsoever" used in Section 4 of the Act do not in my opinion include or embrace within its purview the determination of the question whether the debtor has a right to present the petition for insolvency and that such a decision is contemplated only under Section 25(2) of the Act, which is as follows:

In the case of a petition presented by a debtor, the Court shall dismiss the petition if it is not satisfied of his right to present the petition.

4. A reference to Schedule 1 appended to the Act will show that it enumerates the decisions and orders from which an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 75(2). Among these orders Section 4 and Section 25 are mentioned separately. It would be therefore only reasonable to hold that the decision of questions under Section 4 does not involve a decision dismissing a debtor's petition under Section 25, Provincial Insolvency Act, otherwise there was no necessity for making a a separate mention of Section 25 in the aforesaid schedule. I hold therefore that the decision of the Civil Judge was under Section 25, Provincial Insolvency Act, that it was subject to only one appeal and that a second appeal against that decision is incompetent under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency