Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1018 (AP)

J. Gopalan v. K. Gopinadh

2007-10-12

A.GOPAL REDDY

body2007
ORDER A. Gopal Reddy, J.—These two revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the orders dated 4.7.2001 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A. Nos. 22 and 23 of 2007 in I.P. No. 23 of 2001 respectively. 2. The above two interlocutory applications were filed by the petitioner to reopen the case for the purpose of cross-examination of witness on behalf of the petitioner and for permitting him to examine the witness by name Kannan as court witness on behalf of the petitioner respectively. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The orders impugned in the revision petitions were passed by the Court in exercise of its insolvency jurisdiction and the Court is undisputedly subordinate to the District Court. Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, (for short 'the Act') which deals with appeals reads as follows: 75. Appeals (1): The debtor, any creditor, the Receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction by a Court subordinate to a district court, may appeal to the District Court and the order of the district court upon such appeal shall be final. Provided that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made in any appeal decided by the district court was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. 5. In view of the above provision, it is, therefore, clear that against the orders passed by the Court below, which is subordinate to the District Court, an appeal must lie, at the first instance, to the District Court and in respect of any order passed by the District Court in appeal, the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that whether the order passed by the subordinate Court was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. Since the orders impugned herein are not passed by the District Court in any appeal filed by the aggrieved party the revision petitions cannot be entertained as per the proviso to Section 75(1) of the Act. Since the orders impugned herein are not passed by the District Court in any appeal filed by the aggrieved party the revision petitions cannot be entertained as per the proviso to Section 75(1) of the Act. The Provisional Insolvency Act is a special enactment creating a Special Court and in the matter of orders passed by the Courts having insolvency jurisdiction, which are subordinate to the District Court, under the first proviso to Section 75(1) of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the District Court (See G.C.C.S. Society v. A.A.P.C.S. Society AIR 1971 Mys 233 6. In view of the same, the present revision petitions cannot be entertained. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal as per law. No costs.