^Sf^ww fA fc^ HIGH COURT OF AT BILASPUR Apfieyaats Applicants F.A. P.R. No. 779/08 Arun Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Viayak Prasad Agrawal, Aged about 76 years, R/o Purani Basti Raipur, Tehsil & Distfc Raipur (C,G.)- Respondents/ Non-applicant VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. Fu-mJewarchaad Thakarshi R/o Sadar Bazar, Ward Raipur, TehsU & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Pirm Closed). Jewarchaad, S/o Tbakarshi, R/o Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipiir (C.G.) (died) Premchaad, S/o Sugaa Chaad Oswal Jain, Aged about 22 years, AU R/o Merchaat, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Talisil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.), Sait. Maan Kuawar Bai, W/o Sugau Chaad Oswal Jain, Aged about 50 years, Occupation-Merchant & Moneylender R/o Raipiir, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Dead) Ainolchaad Bhansali, S/o Cbandaninal, Aged about 67 years, Occupation Marchaut & Moneylender, R/o Raipur Sadar Bazar, Bard Hahvai Line, TehsU & District-Raipur (C.G.). (Dead). Ugrasen Jatn, S/o Late Hannant Rai, Aged about 70 years, Occupation- Moneylender R/o Raipiu-, Tahsil & District-Raipur (C.G.) (Dead) Shri Nand Kumar Pandey Advocate, R/o Lakbe Nagar Mahadev Ghat Road RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.05 10:35:51 +0530 i- Respondeat/appellant 8. Raipur, Tah. & Distt, BUaspur (C.G.) Receiver. Ram. Kishaa Shanna, S/o LacUhi Rani Ji, Aged about 67 years, Occupation Busiuess & Landward, R/o Raipur TehsU & Distt-Raipur (C.G.). Krishan Gopal Dani S/o Radhika Prasad Dani Agrawal, aged about 45 years, R/o Purani Basti. Raipur (C.G.). FIRST APPEAL U/S 96 OF THE CIVIL PROCBDURE CODE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T-P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Ravi Rajan Suiha, Advocate for the appeBaat. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 20/03/2009) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10/1/2008 passed by the 4<11 Civil Judge, Class-I Raipur in Insolvency Case No. 01/07. 2. Registiy has pointed out the default that in the light of Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1920^,the present appeal is not maintainable. 3. Leamed counsel for the appellant submits that present appellant has filed the appeal in accordance with subsection 3 of Section 75 of the Act of 1920 and present appeal is maintainable before this Court. 4. It reveals from the order impugned that 4tl> Civil Judge Class-1, Raipur has passed the order in insolvency proceeding. Provision for filing the appeal against the order of different Courts have been provided in Section 75 of the Act of 1920. Section 75 ofthe Act of 1920 reads as follows:_ (l)-The debtor, any creditor, the receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order naade 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; 'i'^t* '^^f •^WK. 'l ^^•' -^ 5. Provided that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made in ay appeal decided by the District Court was according to law, inay call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit: Provided further, that any such person aggriewed by a decision of the District Court on appeal from a decision of a subordinate Court under Section 4 may appeal to the High Court on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (2) Any such person aggrieved by any such decision or order of a District Court as is specified in Schedule I, come to or may otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate Court, may appeal to the High Court. (3) Any such peraon aggrieved by any other order may by a District Court otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate Court may appeal to the High Court by leave of the District Court or of the High Court. (4) The periods of Umitation for appeals to the Distriot Court and to the High Court under this section shall be thirty days and ninety days, respectively. Right of appeal is statutory right provided under the act and person aggrieved may prefer an appeal against the order or decision appealable, before the forum in accordance with the provision contained in statue. In accordance with sub Section 3 of Section 75 of the Act of 1920 an appeal may be filed to the High Court by the aggrieved person against whom any order has been passed by the District Court othenwse then in appecd from an order jnade by subordinate Gourt. Sub section 1 of Section 75 of the Act of 1920 provides the remedy of appeal to the District Court against the decision or order made by a Court subordinate to a District Court in the exercise of insolvencyjurisdiction. 6. Order impugned reveals that order has been passed by the 4<i> Civil Judge Class-1, Raipur in insolvency case No. 01/07. Court of Civil Judge Class-1 is a Court subordinate to District Court. Order has not been passed by the District Court otherwise then in appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the Court subordinate to District Court is appealable before the District Court in accordance with subsection-1 of Section 75 of the Act of 1920 and not before this Court in accordance with subsection 3 of Section 75 of the Act of 192&. Present appeal filed by the appellant before this Court is not maintainable in r ^^^maa^j^ ,,t.> ''< l«iii :<B8®1 4 accordance with subsection-1 of Section 75 read with subsection 3 of Section 75 of the Act of 1920. Consequently, same is liable to be dismissed and hereby dismissed accordingly. 7. Noorder as to costs. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge