1. We do not agree with the opinion of the learned District Judge that the omission to take objection to the assignment of the decree being recognized and to its transmission to the Tiruvalur Court for execution, precluded the judgment-debtor from raising the question in the Executing Court that the decree was not then executable in the manner proposed by the decree-holder. The Small Cause Court at Madras did not adjudicate on the executability of the decree when it ordered it to be transmitted for execution.
2. The other distinction attempted to be made is between creditors who are en the Schedule and those who are, not.
3. At the time of an insolvent's discharge, Section 45(2) of Act 111 of 1907 gives a release to the insolvent from debts entered in the schedule. But after adjudication and before discharge, Section 16 treats all creditors alike as to their remedy against the person and property of an insolvent during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings. This Section in Clause 2(b) absolutely prohibits execution proceedings being taken against the person and property of adjudicated insolvents except with the leave of the Court, and that was the law in force at the time when the appellant was adjudicated insolvent; and under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the introduction of Act V of 1920, which repealed Act III of 1907, could not take away his right.
4. The District Judge's order is set aside and the order of the District Munsif dismissing the execution application is restored with costs here and in the District Court.