IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN INSOLVENCY NOTICE OF MOTION NO.18 OF 2008 IN INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.2 OF 2008 Re : Sumesh Shamrao Kamble ...Debtor/Petitioner Ex-Parte : Mrs.Kumudini Sumesh Kamble ...Decree Holder/ Creditor ...... Mr.Sumesh S.Kamble, debtor in-person in support of Notice of Motion. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 24, 2008. MARCH 24, 2008. MARCH 24, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board. 2. Heard the Debtor in-person. 3. Reliefs claimed in this Application are ill-advised. The fact that Insolvency Petition is pending in this Court does not authorise this Court to set-aside order passed by the Family Court, : 2 : Bandra dated 26th February 2008 or for that matter to stay the execution of decree for recovery of money pending against the Applicant/Debtor in the Family Court till the Insolvency Petition filed by him is decided by this Court. Those are matters which ought to be pursued before the appropriate Court. The fact that the Family Court has not shown indulgence to the Applicant, cannot be the basis to assume jurisdiction to pass orders in terms of reliefs claimed by the Applicant. If the Applicant is dissatisfied with the order passed by the Family Court, he will be free to question the correctness thereof in appropriate proceedings, but in any case, there is no question of issuing directions as prayed in the present proceedings. 4. The Applicant placed emphasis on Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in particular, sub-section (3) thereof. Once again, this argument is on merits of the order passed by the Family Court in respect of which the Applicant will have to pursue appropriate remedy. In my opinion, this Application is devoid of merits. Dismissed. : 3 : 5. It is made clear that all questions raised on behalf of the Applicant are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings on its own merits. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.