JUDGMENT Panckridge, J. - This is an application on behalf of one Benode Behary Saha and his wife Sreemutty Sushama Bala Saha to set aside an order adjudicating them both insolvents. The order was made ex parte by Gentle, J., on February 10th, 1942. Gentle, J., had before him the petition of the adjudicating creditors verified by their joint affidavit and also an affidavit of service affirmed by Surendra Mohan Ghosal who is described as an assistant in the employ of one of the adjudicating creditors' firms, and Keshori Lal Chowdhuri, a clerk in the employ of the attorney acting for the petitioning creditors. The petition contained allegation of facts which would support an order for adjudication, and there being no denial of these facts, an order for adjudication was accordingly made. 2. It appears that certain representatives of the petitioning creditors and representatives of the Official Assignee proceeded to a village called Kundasi, Police Station Lohagarah, in the District of Jessore, where the insolvents own two piece-goods shops. I understand that the insolvents do not admit that any representative of the Official Assignee was among the visitors to Kundasi on that occasion, and I say this because I do not want any observation of mine to prejudice an application on the part of the Official Assignee to take any steps which he may be advised to take against the applicants for obstructing his representative in the course of his duties. The Official Assignee has filed an affidavit sworn by an employee of his named Gurupada Mukherji which, if correct, indicates that the male applicant at any rate has been guilty of conduct amounting to a contempt of Court. With this aspect of the matter I am at the moment only indirectly concerned. 3. The insolvent's on March 3rd, 1942, served a notice on the adjudicating creditors and on the Official Assignee of an application for setting aside the order of adjudication made by Gentle, J. The main contention on the applicants' part has been that the Court had no jurisdiction inasmuch as the insolvents had neither ordinarily resided nor had a dwelling house, nor had carried on business either in person or through an agent within the limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, within a year before the date of the presentation of the insolvency petition. In the notice of the petition for insolvency the applicants are described as carrying on business in co-partnership under the name and style of Benode Behary Sushama Bala Saha at, amongst other places, No. 176, Cross Street, Calcutta. In the petition the petitioning creditors swear that the debtors had ordinarily lived and resided and carried on business in co-partnership at the address mentioned above within the year next preceding the presentation of the petition. It is admitted that the applicants are shop-keepers owning two piece-goods shops in the village of Kundasi and that their business there is that of retailers. It is not suggested that they have a retail business in Calcutta but it is said that the male applicant, at any rate, resides in Calcutta and that they carry on business there in the sense that they have a place of business at No. 176, Cross Street, where the male applicant purchases piece-goods to stock his shop from wholesale dealers. 4. The applicants rely on an affidavit sworn by Ram Abhilak Tewari who is a jamadar in the service of Babu Champalal Boid, the owner of 176, Cross Street. He has been employed as a rent-collector of the various tenants of that house for the last seventeen years. He swears that there was never any tenant of the name of Benode Behary Saha or Sreematy Sushama Bala Saha, nor was any business carried on. at the premises under the name of Benode Behary Sushama Bala Saha. He adds that the premises is not a residential one and no lady ever resided there. He also states that some of the tenants sometimes sleep at their office room or guddee but that there are no cooking arrangements for them though there is a mess situated on the top floor. There is a tenant of a portion of the premises named Bansilal Surana who owns a firm carrying on business under the name and style of Golapchand Sovachand, and it is admitted that this Bansilal acts as a piece-goods broker on the applicants' behalf. 5. The petitioning creditors on the other hand have used an affidavit sworn by Govinda Chandra Das, one of Bansilal Surana's gomastas. He swears that the male applicant used to reside in a portion of Bansilal's guddee where he used to buy piece-goods and make payments to various merchants in Calcutta from whom he used to purchase piece-goods. 5. The petitioning creditors on the other hand have used an affidavit sworn by Govinda Chandra Das, one of Bansilal Surana's gomastas. He swears that the male applicant used to reside in a portion of Bansilal's guddee where he used to buy piece-goods and make payments to various merchants in Calcutta from whom he used to purchase piece-goods. According to this Affidavit Benode's habit was to reside at the premises for four or five days' on each occasion when he used to come to Calcutta, which was twice or thrice a month. He also says that Benode used to tell the merchants that 176, Cross Street, was his Calcutta guddee and his creditors used to come there and goods were delivered there to Benode. 6. I accept what Govinda says as being the substantial truth, but I am of opinion that the facts which he proves do not constitute residence or carrying on business within the meaning of sec. 11 of the Insolvency Act. It seems that the business of the applicants is primarily a retail business in piece-goods carried on at the shops at Kundasi. Of course the retail business cannot be carried on unless the proprietors buy stock for the shops, but I do not think that they can be said to be carrying on business in Calcutta because the male applicant comes to Calcutta once or twice a month for the purpose of purchasing stock through his broker Bansilal and for the purpose of paying for the stock so purchased. 7. As to residence, in my opinion he cannot be said to reside in Calcutta even if he finds it convenient to sleep in Bansilal's guddee. It is not said that he pays any rent or has any right to occupy the guddee, and if Bansilal permits him to spend the night there, this in my opinion does not constitute residence even if the occasions on which the male applicant avails himself of Bansilal's permission are frequent. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioning creditors has said that I cannot go into these matters if I am satisfied that the notice of the insolvency petition was duly served upon the applicants as stated in the affidavit of service. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioning creditors has said that I cannot go into these matters if I am satisfied that the notice of the insolvency petition was duly served upon the applicants as stated in the affidavit of service. There is a conflict of evidence on that point because the deponents state that they proceeded by steamer, whereas the applicants state that there is no steamer service between the stations and villages between which the deponents are said to have travelled by this mode of transport. No time-table showing the existence of a steamer service has been tendered, so it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion on this point. I must say, however, that I am not affirmatively satisfied that service was effected as alleged, because if it had been effected, I think that the applicants would in the circumstances probably have appeared and opposed the petition for adjudication. As against this it is said that the present application is a counter-blast to proceedings which the applicants apprehend may be taken by the Official Assignee to punish them for obstruction to his representative. This, of course, is possible, but on the other hand it appears to me that their position will not be improved in this respect by the setting aside of the order made by Gentle, J. The order was in effect when the Official Assignee's representatives went to take possession. That being so the applicants cannot possibly justify any improper conduct of which they may have been guilty on the ground that the order has subsequently been set aside. On the whole I have come to the conclusion the Court had not jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and I therefore set the order of adjudication aside. The petitioning creditors must pay the costs of this application.