1. So far as the application for adjournment made by the appellant is concerned, we think the Judge was perfectly justified in the circumstances of the case in refusing and his order is further justified by the fact that on the refusal of the adjournment the appellant was unwilling to adduce evidence which was available in Court at the time. He merely instructed his vakil to throw up his case if the adjournment was refused trusting possibly to get a different order in the appellate Court. However that may be, the adjournment was rightly refused.
2. The second point taken with reference to the bond in favour of the appellant is that the question to be determined was one under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and not under Section 53. The Official Receiver had very carefully stated his grounds for taking action under Section 53 and had put in an alternative prayer that if it were proved that the appellant was a creditor, the alienation should be set aside under Section 54. The appellant did not prove that he was a creditor and consequently the Court was entitled to proceed on the application under Section 53. In such cases the burden is on the alienee of proving his bona fides. He failed to do that, and, therefore, the Court's order setting aside the alienation is correct. The appeal is dismissed with costs. N. S. Appeal dismissed.