1. In this case an application was made by the appellant, who purports to have purchased the property of an insolvent at a sale held by the official Receiver, to the effect that his bid might be accepted and that the sale to another person be held to be invalid. Jhe learned District Judge is of opinion that he has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Section 22 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and that a regular suit is necessary. This view of the law is opposed to the very-wide language of Section 22, which says that ' if the insolvent or any of the creditors or any other person is aggrieved by any act or decision of the receiver, he may apply to the court, and the court may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision compLalned of and make such order as it thinks just'. It seems to us that it is convenient and proper that matters of this sort should be disposed of by the executing Court and that is the pLaln direction of the legislature as contained in Section 22. This is the view taken in two recent decisions of this Court in Thiruven-katacharia v. Thangayiammal I.L.R(1915) . Mad. 479 and Avanasi Chetty v. Muthukaruppa Chetty (1918) 7 L.W. 406 . Therefore we set aside the order of the District Judge and remit the matter to him for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result.