JUDGMENT Walsh, J.
1. The question for determination in the Court below was, whether certain money due from the appellant Munna Singh under the decree of a Bent Court, was or was not a "debt" within the meaning of Section 6(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, No. 111. of 1907, or Section 10(1)(a) of the present Act, No. V of 1920, The learned Additional Judge, with out giving any reasons, has said that he does not think that a decree passed by a Rent Court can be considered as a "debt" for the purposes of the Insolvency Ant. We cannot conceive of any definition of the word debt which would exclude the decree in question from the operation of the provisions of the Provincial Act above referred to. The respondent apparently relies on Section 193 of the Local Tenancy Act, No. II of KOI, read with Section 56(2), the repealing section of the Provincial Insolvency Act, No. III of 1907. A question might conceivably arise, as, for instance upon an application by the holder of the Bent Court (Jeorce for the ejectment of the tenant under Section 17(a) of the Tenancy Act, as to there are not the leave of the Insolvency Court was necessary before such an application could be made. That question, however, is not before us. The debtor has brought his case within the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act; he has committed an act of bankruptcy by presenting his petition and be has proved the existence of a "debt", namely, this Bent Court decree, far in excess of the prescribed minimum of Bs. 500. He was entitled to his order of adjudication the legal consequences of the same to be left to work themselves out.
Walsh, J.
2. I entirely agree. I think I can understand the learned Judge's reason. I think, he regarded the Insolvency Act as a method of execution. As a matter of fact, it is a method of evading execution.
3. We set aside the order of the Court below and adjudicate the appellant an insolvent. We return the record to that Court in order that proper proceedings in the insolvency may be taken.