1. There was a decree in December 1923 against one Lakshmi Narain and an order for arrest was passed in September 1925. He was adjudicated in-solvent on a creditor's petition in January 1926. In March 1926 he was brought under arrest under the order made in September 1925 and on that occasion it was ordered that he should be released on furnishing security for his appearance. In June following he filed his schedule but he was unsuccessful after that in getting protection order. Another application on behalf of the decree-holder was made for the committal of Lakshmi Narain to prison. The allegation was that he had not produced his books in the insolvency proceedings. It was ordered that in these circumstances no further steps in execution in the way asked could be taken and against this order, the decree-holder appealed.
2. In my opinion there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge. I would point out that in the circumstances such as the present one the law of India is extremely illogical and the position of the Court would appear to be very embarrassing. Here is a man who so long ago as 26th January of last year was adjudicated an insolvent and so far as we know all his properties would vest either in the Official Assignee or in the receiver who would be appointed by the Court. It is said that he has not disclosed his books and he has been refused the protection order. Nevertheless the object of sending a man to jail for non-payment of debts if he is under an obligation to hand over all his assets to the Court of insolvency does not appear to me very convincing ; still less does it appear to be consistent with the principle that this should be done by one creditor while the assets are supposed to have been impounded on behalf of all creditors. There can be no doubt that the position in the circumstances of this case is very difficult but speaking for myself I am not at all satisfied that the learned Judge in leaving these various complaints to be dealt with in the insolvency jurisdiction did not take a wise course. In the circumstances I would refuse to interfere in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
3. I agree.