JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - This is an appeal against the order dated 16-3-1964 passed by the Sri T. Misra, District Judge, Sambalpur in Miscellaneous Case No. 36/63. 2. The insolvent Appellant applied for his discharge, and the said petition was posted for hearing on 22-7-1963. On that date, as also on the previous date, the Applicant remained absent, and a memo was filed by the insolvent's Advocate to the effect that he had no instructions in the matter. The District Judge therefore by his order dated 22-7-1863 dismissed that case for non-prosecution. Thereafter the insolvent filed a petition to set aside the said order of dismissal. The learned District Judge on a consideration of the overall facts found that the Appellant's plea of sickness, disabling him to attend the Court on 22-7-1963, was a false one, and as such he dismissed this petition by his order dated 16-3-1964. The insolvent has preferred this appeal against the said order. 3. The first point for consideration is the maintainability of this appeal in this Court. Provision for appeals from decisions or orders passed by the different Courts in the matters relating to the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, has been made u/s 75 of the said Act. The order dated 16-3-1964, passed by the District Judge on the petition to set aside the order of dismissal dated 22-7-1963 can only be considered as 'any other order made by a District Court' so as to come within Sub-section (3) of Section 75 of the Act. But an appeal from such an order can be filed in the High Court under this Sub-section only by obtaining leave of the District Court or of the High Court. Admittedly in this case no such leave has been obtained, and as such this appeal is not maintainable. Mr. H. Sen, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that though this Appeal is not maintainable as such this Court has wide powers to convert this Misc. Appeal into It Civil Revision. Here again we find that the Appellant valued this Misc. Appeal at Rs. 30, 311. 94 Paise and paid only Rs. 6/- as court-fee, whereas the court-fee payable in this Court for a Civil Revision of this valuation is Rs. 15/-. Appeal into It Civil Revision. Here again we find that the Appellant valued this Misc. Appeal at Rs. 30, 311. 94 Paise and paid only Rs. 6/- as court-fee, whereas the court-fee payable in this Court for a Civil Revision of this valuation is Rs. 15/-. The Stamp Reporter in his stamp report dated 13.8.1964 raised the question of maintainability of this appeal, and on 4.1.1965 an order was recorded to the effect that the question of maintainability would be considered at the time of hearing. No further steps were taken on behalf of the Appellant to convert this Miscellaneous Appeal into a Civil Revision for 'the last more then four years, and as such various legal complications may arise if at present this appeal is allowed to be converted into a Civil Revision. The learned State Counsel opposed such conversion. Moreover the impugned decision is based on considerations of matters which are purely factual, and there is no question of law involved in this matter. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to convert and treat this appeal, at this stage, as a Civil Revision. In this view of the matter we find that the Misc. Appeal is not maintainable and the Appellant is not entitled to any relief as such. The appeal accordingly is dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to the costs. A. Misra, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed