Burugupalli Rajagopalam vs Office Receiver, West Godavari and others

Chandra Reddy, J.—These two petitions raise the question whether a Court can entertain an application under S. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, filed within 21 days from the date of the held by the Official Receiver. The sale now so(sic) to be impugned was held on 21-12-1949. On the creditors filed a petition on 23-1-1950 for (sic)ting aside the sale on the ground that it did fetch proper price.

Pending that petition the insolvent present petitioner wanted to come on recurve the allegation that the creditor was withdraw the Petition in collusion with the purchaser. petition as well as the petition filed by the editor was rejected on the ground that the 1(sic) was barred under the proviso to S. 68 of the finical Insolvency Act which recites that no application under this Section shall be entertain after the expirations of 21 days from the date the Act or the decision complained of. This has proved unsuccessful the insolvent has br(sic) these two revision petitions.

It is urged by Mr. Ramamurthy for Rama Rao, that a Court is not precluded for entertaining an application notwithstanding it was filed beyond the time prescribed be provisos. In support of this proposition relia(sic) placed on Data Ram v. Deoki Nandan, ILR 1 307 (AIR 1920 Lah 361) (A) where it was that when it came to the knowledge of the that the action of the receiver in any part respect was open to objection the Court has he-rent discretion to rectify the Receiver''s or "mistakes or to reverse or modify his act decisions and from this view-point it would immaterial if the Court acted upon inform supplied by persons who were outside the so Section 22 of the Act and in such a case the limit prescribed by S. 22 would be no bar to being taken by Court.

It may be pointed out that section the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907, is deuced in Section 68 of the present Act. No this judgment renders some assistance to the petitioner. But. this is in the teeth of the (sic)ich lays down that an application filed after day should not be entertained. This is a manor provision which requires the acts of the Refer to be questioned with 21 days. Such being case there is no inherent power in a Court to give a petition filed after the lapse of 21 days authority is needed it is found in AIR 1935 60 (Lahore) .

Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot extended to such applications as it is not applicable to those applications. Vide Thakur Prasad Anno Lal, ILR 35 All 410 (O). It follows that inherent powers of the Court could not be inded when the application is barred under the (sic)so to S. 68. Even assuming such powers (sic)t in a Court this is not a proper case in which in be exercised having regard to the fact that petitioner had not chosen to impugn the sales eight months which clearly signifies that it is (sic)ly an afterthought. There are absolutely no (sic)ts in these petitions and they are dismissed costs In C. R. P. No. 248 of 1954.