Alagappa Chetti vs Sarathambal, by mother and guardian Krishnammal and Others

Moore, J.—The order of the District Judge cannot be upheld. The petitioner was arrested on the 22nd January 1899, but was released u/s

336, Civil Procedure Code, on his furnishing security that he would within one month apply to be declared an insolvent. For reasons that need not

be considered he did not; apply to a court having jurisdiction till the 6th May 1899, when he made the present application to the District Munsif of

Madura who rejected it as out of time. On appeal his order was confirmed by the District Judge. It does not appear that there is any question as to

a bar by limitation in a case of this sort.

As the petitioner did not put in his application to be declared an insolvent within the prescribed time, he was liable to be committed to jail; and if

this had been done, he would certainly have had to put in a fresh application under the third clause of paragraph (b) of the proviso to Section 336,

Civil Procedure Code. He was not, however, so arrested, and it is, therefore still open to him to apply u/s 344, Civil Procedure Code, to be

declared an insolvent on the strength of the permission given to him to do so on the 23rd January 1899.

This appeal is allowed, the order oj: the District Judge is set aside with costs and the appeal is sent back to him for decision of the other points

raised.