AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das, J.—This application is directed against the order of the learned District Judge of Darbhanga, dated the 7th August 1926, by which he refused leave to the petitioner to appeal to this Court from his order, dated the 20th July 1926. The facts are these: The petitioner made an application for being adjudicated an insolvent on the 24th July 1923. On the 26th January 1924, am order was passed adjudicating him an insolvent and six months'' time was allowed to him to apply for final discharge. The application for final discharge was not made, and, on the 14th November 1924, the adjudication was annulled u/s 43, para. 1, Provincial Insolvency Act. On the 19th June 1926, the petitioner made a fresh application for being adjudicated an insolvent. This he could do only with the permission of the learned District Judge u/s 10, para 2 of the Act. The learned District Judge in a well-considered judgment refused to give him leave u/s 10, para. 2, of the Act. He then applied for leave to appeal to this Court and this application, as I have said, was refused by the learned District Judge.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned District Judge erred in thinking that a question of law must be involved in a case of this nature. Section 75, para. 3, provides as follows:
Any such person aggrieved by any other order made by a District Court otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate Court may appeal to the High Court by leave of the District Court or of the High Court.
The statute does not provide that leave may be granted on questions of fact; nor does it provide that the District Court should not grant leave on questions of fact. The matter is, however, in the discretion of the District Court and it would not be right for us to interfere with the exercise of that discretion.
We have, however, examined the evidence which was adduced before the learned District Judge and we have considered the order passed by the learned District Judge in the application which was made before him u/s 10, para. 2, of the Act. Having read the evidence we are unable to say that the view of the learned District Judge is incorrect. That being so, it is quite impossible for us to interfere in this case.
The application must be rejected with costs. Hearing-fee: two gold mohurs.
Allanson, J.
I agree.