1. In this case we find that the order of the learned District Judge is substantially one passed in the exercise of his inherent powers to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record, or an error due to a misapprehension of the actual state of facts borne out by the record. It is beyond dispute that the original Insolvency Petition which stood adcurned for hearing to 22nd January 1926, was advanced to 22nd December 1925, and disposed of by the Court without notice to the insolvent. The insolvent applied for discharge within six months from 22nd January 1926. His application would be within time if the Insolvency Petition was taken up on the adjourned date of heading and the order of adjudication was passed on that date. But the Court acted under a misapprehension in dismissing his first application for discharge as out of time, and as a consequence of the dismissal annulled the adjudication. An error of this kind has been held to be one apparent on the face of the record, Muthu Pillai v. Lakshminarayan AIR 1928 Rang 177. If so, according to the view expressed in a recent Full Beach decision of this High Court, Venkatapayya v. Punnayya AIR 1933 Mad 631, it is unnecessary to consider the provisions of the Insolvency Act or the Civil Procedure Code, which place certain limitations on the rights of parties to apply by way of. review or in any other manner.
2. In the circumstances of this case, we think the District Judge was not wrong in exercising his inherent power to set right a mistake made by the Court is passing the annulment order. In this view it is unnecessary to consider the other, points raised in the course of the arguments. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.