S.N. Modi, J.
1. This is a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, against the order of Additional District Judge, Bundi, dated June 9, 1976.
2. Respondent Messrs Daulat Ram Mulk Raj, a partnership firm, moved a petition in the court of Additional District Judge, Bundi, under Section 7 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for adjudging the appellant to be an insolvent.
3. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that the court of Additional District Judge, Bundi, has no jurisdiction to entertain an insolvency petition under the Act. This objection was overruled by the learned Additional District Judge, Bundi, on the basis of the order of the District Judge, Kota, dated June 14, 1968, by which the District Judge, Kota, in exercise of his powers conferred upon him under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, ordered that all suits, appeals and applications arising within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge at Bundi, be filed directly in the said court. Dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the District Judge had no powers to invest the Additional District Judge, Bundi, to try applications under
5. Section 3 of the Act runs as under-
'3. Insolvency jurisdiction. (1) The District Courts shall be the Courts having jurisdiction under this Act:
Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, invest any Court subordinate to a District Court with jurisdiction in any class of cases, and any Court so invested shall within the local limits of its jurisdiction have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court under this Act. (2) For the purposes of this Act, a Court of Small Causes shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court.'
6. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act defines 'District Court' as meaning 'the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction'.
7. It is clear that under Section 3(1) of the Act, the District Court is the only Court having jurisdiction to deal with insolvency cases in the absence of any notification of the Local Government investing any court subordinate to the District Court with jurisdiction to deal with cases under the Act. In absence of such notification, the District Judge's order dated June 14, 1968 conferring powers to the Additional District Judges to deal with cases under the Act, is ultra vires.
8. But fortunately the State of Rajasthan on January 9, 1951, vide Notification No. F. 1 (135) Jud/50, published in Rajasthan Gazette dated January 20, 1951, on page 775, conferred powers to try cases under the Act to all the Civil and Additional Sessions Judges in Rajasthan. The Notification reads as under,--'
No. F. 1 (135) Jud./50.--In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, as adapted to Rajasthan, the Government of Rajasthan is pleased to invest all the Civil and Additional Sessions Judges in Rajasthan, in virtue of their office, with the power to try cases under the said Act within their respective territorial jurisdiction, By Order ofHis Highness the Rajpramukh, Prabhu Dayal Loiwal, Secretary to the Government ofRajasthan, Judicial Department.'
It is not in dispute that the courts which were called in the year 1951 as the courts of Civil and Additional Sessions Judges are now called as the Courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges.
9. That being the case, it can safely be said that the above notification which was issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act invested the Courts of Additional District Judges, the powers to try cases under the Act within their respective territorial jurisdiction. The Additional District Judge, Bundi, in the circumstances, had the jurisdiction under the said Notification to entertain and hear the petition under Section 7 of the Act
10. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed though on a different ground. Since the respondent has not put in his appearance, I pass no order as to costs.