JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This Civil Revision arises out of an insolvency proceedings. Har Narain Lal filed an insolvency petition for adjudication of Swami Dayal and other creditors. The insolvency petition was dismissed on 5-9-1959. On 8-9-1959 Har Narain Lal applied for review. The review application was allowed by the learned Insolvency Judge, Farrukhabad by his order dated 6-1-1960. It was ordered that the opposite parties be adjudged insolvents. 2. Two separate appeals were filed by different creditors against the order of adjudication passed by the learned Insolvency Judge. One appeal was by Kanhaiya Lal and others; while the other appeal was by Lallu Ram creditor. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Learned District Judge of Farrukhabad on 4-9-1961. This Civil Revision by Lallu Ram creditor is directed against the appellate order of the learned District Judge. 3. When this revision came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, he considered that it was a little difficult to say whether in such cases the appeal before the District Judge was governed by Section 75. Provincial Insolvency Act or by order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge, therefore, referred this case to a larger Bench. That is how this case has come up before us. 4. The main grievance of Lallu Ram applicant is that the learned Insolvency Judge passed his order on 6-1-1960 without any notice to Lallu Ram Creditor. On this point, the learned District Judge observed that this ground as not taken in the memorandum of appeal. This observation appears to be unjustified. For, on going through the grounds of appeal in Insolvency Appeal No. 34 of 1960, we find that ground No. 2 in the appeal raised the point that Lallu Ram appellant was a necessary party to the case but no notice of the review application was given to him. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to urge this point before the learned District Judge. 5. There are two separate provisions governing appeals of this kind. Firstly, we have got Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act providing for appeals to the District Court from orders passed by subordinate Courts. Again, Order XLVII, R.7, C.P.C. deals with orders granting applications for review. In Munnu Lal v. Kunj Bihari Lal, I.L.R. XLIV Alld. 5. There are two separate provisions governing appeals of this kind. Firstly, we have got Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act providing for appeals to the District Court from orders passed by subordinate Courts. Again, Order XLVII, R.7, C.P.C. deals with orders granting applications for review. In Munnu Lal v. Kunj Bihari Lal, I.L.R. XLIV Alld. 605 : 20 A.L.J. 517, it was held that a District Judge sitting as an appellate Court in Insolvency has the same powers as an appellate Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. If he reviews the judgment in special, an appeal from that order will only lie the provisions of Or. XLVII, Rule 7, C.P.C. are applicable. 6. We see no difficulty in applying the provision of Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act as well as the provisions of Or. XLVII, Rule 7 C.P.C. to appeals of this nature. Although Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act provides for appeals of his kind, disposal of such appeals will be governed by Or. XLVII, Rule 7, C.P.C. 7. Order XLVII, Rule 7, C.P.C. lays down an order granting an application is appealable on limited grounds. One such grounds is mentioned in Clause (b) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 7 of Order XLVII of the Code. That ground is that the order under appeal was in contravention of the provisions of Rule 4. Rule 4 of Order XLVII lays down that an application for review shall not be granted without notice to the opposite party. If the present applicant can establish non-contravention of Rule 4, it would mean that the appeal before the learned District Judge was maintainable. 8. In this connection, Mr. K.C. Saxena, appearing for the debtors, urged two points. Firstly, it was contended that Lallu Ram was not a necessary party in the review proceeding. Secondly, it was suggested that Lallu Ram did get constructive notice. These two contentions may be examined one by one. 9. Section 9, Provincial Insolvency Act provides for an insolvency petition by a creditor. See 9 opens thus: "(1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless..." If one were to confine one's attention to Section 9, one would get the impression that the petitioner-creditor and the debtor are the only necessary parties to such a proceeding. See 9 opens thus: "(1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless..." If one were to confine one's attention to Section 9, one would get the impression that the petitioner-creditor and the debtor are the only necessary parties to such a proceeding. But the position has been clarified by subsequent provisions in the provincial Insolvency Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). Section 18 of the Act lays down the procedure for admission of petitions. Section 19 prescribes the procedure upon admission of the petition. Sub-Section (2) of Section 19 lays down that notice of the order admitting an insolvency petition shall be given to creditors as such manner as may be prescribed. Section 24 prescribers the procedure at hearing. Section 27 provides for passing an order of adjudication. It will thus be clear that, before the insolvency Court passes an order of adjudication under Section 27 of the Act, notices must be given to creditors as laid down in Section 19 of the Act. 10. In the instant case Lallu Ram creditor actually appeared before the Insolvency Court at the initial stage of the proceeding. But it appears from the record of the review proceeding that no fresh notice was given to Lallu Ram between 8-9-1959 and 6-1-1960. It may be that the order of adjudication dated 6-1-1960 was duly published later on. But that does not alter the fact that the order of adjudication was passed without any notice to Lallu Ram creditor. We have seen that Lallu Ram creditor was a necessary party in the proceeding for adjudication. It follows that he was also a necessary party to the subsequent proceeding upon the review application. 11. In "Jamal din v. Bishambar Dial, A.I.R. 1929 Lah. 72, it was held that, it is not necessary for an appellant to make other creditors, who joined with him in the original petition for adjudication, parties to the appeal if the debt which he states is owing him, is more than Rs. 500/-. It appears that in that case the various creditors had identical interest in the insolvency proceeding. In the present case Har Narain Lal creditor was anxious for adjudication; whereas Lallu Ram creditor opposed adjudication. In view of clash of interest between Har Narain Lal and Lallu Ram, the principle of Jamal Din's case will not apply in the present case. It appears that in that case the various creditors had identical interest in the insolvency proceeding. In the present case Har Narain Lal creditor was anxious for adjudication; whereas Lallu Ram creditor opposed adjudication. In view of clash of interest between Har Narain Lal and Lallu Ram, the principle of Jamal Din's case will not apply in the present case. 12. The applicant has succeeded in establishing that the order of adjudication dated 6-1-1960 was illegal, because the Insolvency Court did not follow the correct procedure prescribed by the Provincial Insolvency Act. In view of the error of procedure committed by the Insolvency Court, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the appeal to the district Judge. The proper order will be to remand the review application to the Insolvency Court for disposal in accordance with law. 13. The Civil Revision is allowed. We set aside the orders of the learned District Judge dated 4-9-1961 and the order of the Insolvency Judge dated 6-1-1960 respectively and the remand the review application dated 8-9-1959 to the Insolvency Judge for disposal in accordance with law in the light of this judgment. Lallu Ram applicant shall get costs of this revision from Purshottam Narrain, opposite party. Opposite party shall bear their own costs before this Court.