Short Note : The material facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly are as follows. Non-applicant No.1 M/s Vimal Kumar and Co., filed a petition under section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, hereinafter called the Act, against non-applicant No.6 Yeshwantsingh Kothari, hereinafter referred to as the debtor. On 14th April 1969, an order was passed by the lower Court appointing Shri Jhanver as an interim receiver under section 20 of the Act. The receiver took possession of certain movable property which according to the receiver, belonged to the debtor. In pursuance of a Suparatnama executed by the debtor, the said property continued to be in possession of the debtor as a Suparatdar. It is not necessary to refer to the various proceeding that have taken place in the case which are not relevant for the purpose of the case. It is admitted that an order of adjudication has been passed by the lower Court. The receiver Shri Jhanver having expressed his inability to continue to act as a receiver, Shri Upadhyaya Advocate was appointed by the lower Court as a receiver and he was directed by the lower Court to take charge from the outgoing receiver, and by an order dated 7th April 1978 Shri Jhanver was directed to hand over all movable property, of which he had taken possession, to Shri Upadhyaya. On 11th April 1978, the debtor submitted an application to the Court that he was prepared to give a new Suparatnama in favour of Shri Upadhyaya and that he may be permitted to retain possession of the movable property. This application was opposed by some of this creditors. The application filed by the debtor was dismissed and a revision petition filed by the debtor against that order was also dismissed by the Court. On 12th April 1978, the lower Court directed Shri Jhanver to bring all movable property into the Court which he held given on Suparatnama to the debtor on 22nd April 1969. The present applicant No. 1, the wife of the debtor, and applicants Nos. On 12th April 1978, the lower Court directed Shri Jhanver to bring all movable property into the Court which he held given on Suparatnama to the debtor on 22nd April 1969. The present applicant No. 1, the wife of the debtor, and applicants Nos. 2 and 3, daughters of the debtor then moved an application contending that they had already objected to the sale of the said property as they had title to and right and interest in the said movable property and till the extent of the right of the debtor in the property was not determined and the date to sell that property was not fixed, the property in question, which was of daily use, be allowed to remain with the in solvent on Suparatnama and that they were prepared to furnish solvent security. The lower Court, however, by the impugned order, dismissed that application. Hence the applicants have preferred this revision petition. Held : The short question for consideration in this case is whether the lower Court, in directing the debtor to produce into the Court that property as is in his possession in pursuance of a Suparatnama executed by him in favour of the outgoing receiver, has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction or has committed any jurisdictional error in passing that order. It is not necessary at this stage to determine the question as to whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to direct the receiver to take possession of property which was alleged to be in possession of a third party who was setting up a title to it. Moreover, on 2nd December 1971, the present applicants had submitted an application before the lower Court stating that possession of the said property was taken over from them by the receiver. Whether the receiver was justified at that stage in taking possession or not is the question in dispute at this stage. The property is in possession of the debtor as Suparadar. He, therefore, is bound to produce that property in terms of the Suparatnama executed by him. If, after production the applicants choose to contend that they are entitled to recover possession of that property, then the lower Court shall consider that question and decide it in accordance with law. The property is in possession of the debtor as Suparadar. He, therefore, is bound to produce that property in terms of the Suparatnama executed by him. If, after production the applicants choose to contend that they are entitled to recover possession of that property, then the lower Court shall consider that question and decide it in accordance with law. But at this stage it cannot be held that, in directing the Suparatdar to produce the said property in the Court, the lower Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction or has committed any jurisdictional error. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. Revision dismissed.