1. Two petitions are before me in this matter both filed by a creditor, one Nandalal Acharya.
2. By the first petition, filed on the 7th May, the creditor seeks to set aside an order of the 27th April, 1923 annulling a previous adjudication and by the second petition a fresh order of adjudication is sought.
3. The facts are as follows : Meghraj Purohit was adjudicated an insolvent on the 29th August 1921 at the instance of a creditor. On the 27th April 1923 the Registrar in Insolvency at the instance of a creditor, the Bombay Holland Trading Company, Ltd., annulled the adjudication order under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act as the insolvent had not applied for his discharge within the time fixed by Rule 142-A of the Insolvency Rules. The application was made upon notice to the insolvent and to the Official Assignee and it was advertised in the Calcutta Gazette as provided by Rule 142-B.
4. Now it is urged that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to make the order annulling the adjudication, but I do not think that this contention is well founded. Section 6 of the Act authorises the delegation to an officer of the matters set out in Sub-section (2) which includes (c) matters to be dealt with in chambers. Now applications for annulment do not require to be dealt with in Court (see Rule 5), and can therefore be heard and determined in chambers. I think, therefore, that the Registrar had jurisdiction to make the order of annulment. Now under Section 8 of the Act the Court can review its orders, but as the order was passed by the Registrar he is the person to whom the application for review must be made (see Rule 47, C.P.C.) and I cannot entertain an application for review.
5. An appeal of course lies to me from the order of the Registrar [see Section 8(2)(a)] I but that must be made within 20 days (see Section 101) which has not been done and if I have power to extend the time under Section 90(5) I see no reason for doing so in this case. The application therefore to set aside the annulment fails.
6. I now come to the 2nd application, namely, that for adjudication. The circumstances are suspicious, and before deciding whether I should grant; or refuse an order I should desire to have an opportunity of testing the truth of the allegations in the petition and I accordingly direct the Petitioner and Meghraj to attend for oral examination before me on Tuesday, June 19th.
7. The Official Assignee should, in the meantime, retain the sum in his possession until further order.