this quest ion of limitation was raised before the district judge and the objection was over ruled by him.
the creditors including the appellant came up in appeal from the order of the district judge.
but similarly if he applies under s. 22 he must companyply with the terms of s. 22.
ci/67 11 i.r.
appeal from the judgment and order dated numberember 28 1962 of the punjab high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 212 of 1961.
the receiver pleaded that he had taken possession thereafter at the instance of two creditors.
appellant the facts were as follows.
two days thereafter one mohinder lal was appointed as a receiver in insolvency by the order of the companyrt and lie was directed to take possession of the property of the insolvent.
while the latter was taking steps to realise the assets the appellant asserted that some of the properties companyered by the mortgage decree were his and denied the right of the insolvent to such properties at the same time preferring a claim petition before the official receiver.
in appeal the district judge differed from both the findings.
hans raj filed an objection application on 21st december 1954 alleging that the property detailed therein belonged to him and was exclusively in his possession.
1932 allahabad 408.
the high companyrt as already numbered held that the application of hans raj was number within time resulting in the dismissal of the objection petition.
a division bench of the allahabad high companyrt held that the application was barred by limitation observing at the same time a stranger to the insolvency is number bound to go to the insolvency companyrt at all.
a.i.r.
bansilal thereupon made an application under s. 68 on the ground that the action of the receivers was illegal.
the respodent obtained a mortgage decree against a person who was subsequently adjudicated an insolvent and the official receiver assumed jurisdiction over his properties.
the learned judge decided the first issue against the objector but held that the application was number covered by s. 68 of the act.
the insolvency judge framed two issues namely 1 is the objector owner of the suit property and in possession thereof and is it accordingly number liable to be attached by the receiver ?
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1000 of 1 964.
he prayed for release of the property from attachment and restoration of possession to him.
in bhairo prasads case 1 the provincial insolvency act 1907 was in operation and there a stranger to the insolvency complained of an act of attachment after the lapse of 21 days.
he has the ordinary right which every individual has to seek redress in the ordinary civil companyrts for any grievance or trespass to his property whether companymitted by an official receiver or anybody else but he can if he pleases if he complains against the act of the receiver apply under s. 22 to the insolvency companyrt itself.
against that order the mortgagee decreeholder filed a petition before the district judge under s. 68 who set aside the order of the official receiver and further directed that the claim petition also do stand dismissed.
an objection was raised by the respondents that no appeal lay without the leave either of the district judge or of the high companyrt.
naunit lal for respondent number.
an objection was raised by the respondent bansilal that he was a purchaser for companysideration of the attached property.
in the result he accepted the appeal and dismissed the objection petition.
a.i.r.
the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows brij lal and hans raj were brothers.
by the attaching decree holder and ultimately decreed it having been held that the sale by the judgment debtors was fraudulent as against the creditors.
the objector was number challenging the act of the receiver who had numbervoice in the matter but the order of attachment passed by the companyrt ex parte.
the district judge allowed the application holding that the decree passed in the suit under o. 21 r. 63 was operative only so far as the execution proceedings were companycerned and that it did number enure for the benefit of the other creditors.
on 26th and 27th numberember 1954 the receiver took possession of various properties of the insolvent and attached some urban property and agricultural land which are the subject matter of the present litigation.
on an application having been made by the creditors of brij lal in the year 1949 the insolvency judge barnala adjudicated him as an insolvent on 23rd numberember 1954.
bishan narain and b. p. maheshwari for the appellant.
and 2 whether the objection petition was time barred ?
he held that there had been numberpartition of the joint hindu family of the insolvent and his brother but on the point of limitation he found against the objector.
the learned judges distinguished the cases of bhairo prasad vs. p. c. dass 1 and hussaini v. muhammad zamir abdi 2 on the ground that in those cases there was numberorder of the court directing attachment but the act companyplained of was an act of the receiver himself.
the objection having been allowed a suit was filed under o. 21 r. 63 c.p.c.
rattan lal who replaced the original receiver on the latters death tiled a letters patent appeal to the high companyrt.
a.i.r.
1 to 3.
he therefore set aside the sale by the receivers.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mitter j. this is an appeal by a certificate against a judgment of a division bench of the high companyrt at chandigarh in letters patent appeal number 212 of 1961.
hans raj went up in second appeal to the punjab high companyrt.
the appellant had a money decree against the insolvents which he executed by attachment of a moiety of a share in a house which he alleged belonged to the judgment debtors.
this was before the order of adjudication.
the subject of appeal before the a.i.r.
the receivers in insolvency then took possession of the property attached by the appellant and sold the same in the insolvency proceedings.
1941 madras75.
1919 allahabad 274.
