JUDGMENT

P.C. Banerji, J. - In my opinion the view taken by the Court below is right. In this case a Receiver was appointed and he applied to the Court u/s 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for the taking of proceedings against the insolvent for alleged malpractices. The Court went into the matter and decided in favour of the insolvent and refused to take action against him. From this order the Receiver appealed to the District Judge, as the order of the Court of first instance was an order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes invested with insolvency jurisdiction.

2. The learned Judge has held that the Receiver is not an aggrieved party and is not, therefore, entitled to appeal. I agree with that view. The Receiver is not an aggrieved party and does not represent the Crown. His position is that of representative of the creditors. It has been held in Ladu Ram v. Mahabir Prasad 37 IC 996 : 15 A.L.J. 31 : 39 A. 171 that a creditor is not an aggrieved party and is not entitled to appeal against an order passed u/s 43. The same principle applies to the present case. I accordingly dismiss the application with costs.