JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - These two petitions may be dealt with together. They arise out of Insolvency Case No. 195 of 1927, in re Maung Tin U, and Insolvency Case No. 196 of 1927, in re Maung Soe Win. The two insolvents are brothers, and the circumstances of both insolvencies are the same. In both cases the discharge of the insolvent was suspended. The order in Maung Tin U's case was an order regularly made under the provisions of Section 39(1)(c), Rangoon Insolvency Act. It is dated 7th March 1928, and reads as follows: " His discharge is suspended till a -dividend of four annas in the rupee is paid to the creditors." In Maung Soe Win's case, the order which was passed, on 10th March 1931, reads as follows:

Insolvent must pay 4 annas in the rupee of the debts mentioned in the schedule before he can apply for his discharge.

2. With the greatest respect, this is not an order which can be made under the provisions of Section 39(1), Rangoon Insolvency Act. There was no appeal against the order, and it has been acted upon since 1931, and therefore it is now scarcely open to me, to review it; but, in my view, it must be construed also as an order made under Section 39(1)(c), that is, that the discharge was suspended until a dividend of not less than four annas in the rupee had been paid to the creditors. Consequently, in both cases, I hold that the orders on the discharge applications of the insolvents were, in effect, both orders that the discharge of the insolvents should be suspended until a dividend of not less than four annas in the rupee had been paid to the creditors. Both the insolvents were clerks employed in the Irrawady Flotilla Company, and in each case an appropriation order against the insolvent's salary was issued. In both cases, by this means, the Official Assignee has recovered a sum more than sufficient to declare a dividend of four annas in the rupee on all the debts mentioned in the schedules of the insolvents.

3. The insolvents have now applied for their final discharge and also for a refund to them of the surplus remaining in the Official Assignee's hands after the declaration of this dividend of four annas in the rupee. There is a special prayer in the applications in regard to one of the creditors of both insolvents who has waived his claim, but, as I shall presently point out, it is unnecessary to consider this special prayer because no creditor has proved his debt. At the request of the Official Assignee, I propose to try and lay down certain general rules of practice which will govern these two cases and all similar cases where a discharge has been suspended.

4. In the first place, whenever an order suspending a discharge is made, either under Clause (b) or under Clause (c) of Section 39(1), Rangoon Insolvency Act, under Clause (b) when the specified period has expired, and under Clause (c) when the dividend of four annas in the rupee has been paid or a sum sufficient to pay such a dividend has come into the hands of the Official Assignee, then the suspension automatically terminates and the discharge becomes effective. No further order of the Court is required to complete the discharge. This has been pointed out by my brother Braund in his order of 5th May 1936, in In re E.A. Dodsley Insolvency Case No. 152 of 1928. If further authority is required for this proposition, reference may be made to the case in Muradally Shamji v. B.N. Lang A.I.R. (1920) Bom. 419, where the learned Judge laid down that the practice of the High Court to require the insolvent whose discharge has been suspended to appear and obtain the final and absolute discharge after the expiry of the period of suspension being in contravention of the law was unlawful and ought not to be given effect to. With the greatest respect, I adopt these words and hereby direct that, so far as this Court is concerned, the practice of making a formal application for a final discharge, when the discharge has been suspended either Under Clause (b) or under Clause