JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan and Kaul, JJ. - This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of Bara Bauki granting an application by the debtors in Insolvency proceedings under Order XXIII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The case has had a long and chequered history and the end unfortunately is still not is sight. 3. The appellant carries on business of a commission agent in Cawnpore and the respondents have a cloth business in Fateh- pur district Barabanki. Transactions bstween the parties have continued for over 20 years and by 1939 the respondents owed to the appellant something like Rs. 50,000 or so. The respondents gifted their properties to their wives and children some time in June 1939. The appellant treating it as a fraudulent act intended to place the properties out of his reach filed an application on the 1st August, 1939, under Sections 6, 9 and 13 of the Insolvency Act asking that the respondents should be declared insolvents. He also prayed that a receiver should be appointed. A receiver was appointed on the same date. On the 8th August, 1939, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the application under the Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1937, (No. X of 1937), as they were agriculturists. The proceeding were stayed on the 23rd January, 19+0. The appellant appealed to this Court but in the meantime Act No. X of 1937 had been repealed. The appeal was, therefore, withdrawn on the 3rd January 1941. When the case came back, notices were issued to the parties for the 31st January, 1941, On the 31st January the appellant filed a fresh application alleging several illegal acts by the respondents. On the 15th February the application out of which the present appeal arises was filed by the respondents alleging that there had been a compromise between the parties out of Court, that the entire liability had been fixed at Rs. 35,000 out of which Rs. 10,000 had been paid in cash and the balance was made payable by instalments. The appellant denied the compromise. 4. The learned District Judge, acting as an Insolvency Judge, went into this question and held that the compromise was genuine and should be recorded by the Court under Order XXIII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10,000 had been paid in cash and the balance was made payable by instalments. The appellant denied the compromise. 4. The learned District Judge, acting as an Insolvency Judge, went into this question and held that the compromise was genuine and should be recorded by the Court under Order XXIII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The operative portion of the order is as follows : I have therefore no doubt in my mind that the compromise set up by the opposite-parties con- tained in their application dated the 15th February 1941 is a genuine one and it should be recorded by Court under Order 23, Rule 3, C. P. C. I order accordingly and direct that the opposite-parties sheuld pay to the applicant-firm Rs. 10,000 which they agreed to pay in cash and also Rs. 5,000 on account of the first instalment, which has already become due within ten days of their getting notice of this order. On their failure to do so their application under Order 23, Rule 3 would stand dismissed. Co;ts on parties. 5. Against this order the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant creditor. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for parties at great length and have regretfully arrived at the conclusion that the whole procedure was misconceived by the learoed District Judge and his order must be set aside. It appears from the endorsement on the application for insolvency that it was duly admitted and notice was ordered to icsue. Section 19 of the Act lays down the procedure on admission of petition as follows : 19(1) where an insolvency petition is admitted the Court shall make an order fixing a date for hearing the petition. (2) Notice of the order under sub-Section (1) shall be given to creditors in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) Where the debtor is not the petitioner, notice of the order under sub-section (1) shall be served on him in the manner provided for the service of summons. 7. Notices are to be issued in accordance with paragraph 277 (5) of the Oudh Civil Rules, which says that The notice of an order fixing the date of the hearing of the petition u/s 19 (2) shall be by advertisements in such newspaper or newspapers, official or otherwise, as the (Court may direct. 7. Notices are to be issued in accordance with paragraph 277 (5) of the Oudh Civil Rules, which says that The notice of an order fixing the date of the hearing of the petition u/s 19 (2) shall be by advertisements in such newspaper or newspapers, official or otherwise, as the (Court may direct. A copy of the notice shall also be forwarded by registered letter to each creditor to the address given in the petition. The same procedure shall be followed in respect of notices the date for the consideration of a proposal for composition or scheme of arrangement u/s 38 (1). 8. It does not appear from the record that the provisions of Section 19 were complied with. There is nothing to show that any notice was issued by advertisement in the newspapers. This accounts for the absence of creditors coming forward to take part in the Insolvency proceedings against the debtors. It may be mentioned that the appellant did not give the list of any other creditor in his application. Far from issuing such notice the learned Judge entertained an application by the debtors alleging adjustment out: of Court and embarked upon a prolonged enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the settlement. The order which has been quoted above falls, it is contended on behalf of the debtors, u/s 25 of the Insolvency Act. It is urged that the lower Court was satisfied by the debtors that they were able to pay their debts inasmuch as they undertook the li- ability to pay in alcertain manner and therefore the Court was bound to 'dismiss the petition for insolvency, but we are unable to say that such a conclusion is implicit in the order above referred to. All that the order shows is that if the money is paid within time the application under Order XXIII rule 3 of the CPC should be allowed but if it was not so paid it would stand dismissed. From the record it appears that only Rs. 15,000 have been paid so far and the balance still remains to be piid. There is nothing to show that the instalments mentioned in the compromise had been paid on due dates. From the record it appears that only Rs. 15,000 have been paid so far and the balance still remains to be piid. There is nothing to show that the instalments mentioned in the compromise had been paid on due dates. If the application under Order XXIII rule 3 is taken to be dismissed, the order does not say as to the next step which the lower Court would intend to follow If the application is al- lowed " nothing; is said as to the fate of the application for insolvency. It appears to us that the learned Judge has not applied his judicial mind to the determination of the question |arising bifore him unier the Insolvency Act. u/s 14 no petition, whether presented by a debtor or by a creditor, can be withdrawn without the leave of the Cjurt. We have already said -that the order of the learned Judge does not show that he was satisfied within the meaning of SsctioJ 25 (1) of the Insolvency Act that the debtors were able to pay their debts, nor does it show that, for any other sufficient cause, he thought that no order ought to be made upon the petition for insolvency. That he has wholly disregarded the mandatory provisions of Section 19 is clear from his omission to issue any notice to the creditors. u/s 27 of the Act if the Court does not dismiss the petition it must make an order of adjudication. There is nothing to show that the Court dismissed the petition and yet no order of adjudication was -made. In paragraph 4 of his application the ] appellant had clearly objected that according to the Provincial Insolvency Act no compromise could be made between the parties on the basis of which the Court could decide the application for insolvency before declaring them insolvent. No attention appears to have been paid by the learned Judge to this plea. We may observe that Or. 23, r. 3 C. P. C. as such has no application to insolvency proceedings. There is no order either dismissing the petition or making an order of adjudication as.required by Section 27 of the Act. We are satisfied that the whole procedure was misconceived and must be set aside. 9. We may observe that Or. 23, r. 3 C. P. C. as such has no application to insolvency proceedings. There is no order either dismissing the petition or making an order of adjudication as.required by Section 27 of the Act. We are satisfied that the whole procedure was misconceived and must be set aside. 9. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below and remand the case for decision by that Court according 'to law. Costs will abide the event.