JUDGMENT George Knox, J.
1. Syed Ali Akhtar, who represents himself as having been a minor when the matter in question was first agitated, has asked this Court to permit him to proceed with the suit which he has instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Fyzabad and in which a decree was obtained ex parte against him. Thin decree, when the Bank applied for execution, was transferred to Jaunpur. He objected to the execution of the decree and it was refused. The next step that he took was that on the 14th of December 1918 three months' time was given to him to file a regular suit. This regular suit he filed before the Munsif of Jaunpur and it is there as Suit No. 162 of 1919. The defendant is the People's Industrial Bank in Liquidation through their Official Liquidator. A legal objection was raised by the said Bank through the Liquidator that no suit was maintainable without the permission of the High Court. This is hardly accurately stated, but I believe it was the way in which the petitioner understood the object ion to ran. Upon the objection being raised the Munsif directed the deponent to move this Court. It cannot be questioned and it is not questioned that the People's Industrial Bank is in liquidation and that an Official Liquidator has been appointed. The petitioner is met by Section 284 of Act No. VII of 1913, and reading that section I have no doubt as to its requiring that every company in which the grinding-up has been commented before the commencement of this Act and is still pending shall be wound up in the same manner and with the same incidents as if Act No. VII of 1913 bad not been passed and for the purposes of winding up the Indian Companies Act of 1882 shall be deemed to remain in full force. The learned Vakil for the petitioner contended that this being a question of procedure he is entitled to take advantage of this Act, but the words of the section are so emphatic that no room for doubt in this matter is left. He then contended that his suit was not one connected with this section and that this section refers strictly only to winding up of companies. This contention is without weight and we are thrown back upon Section 136 of Act No. VI of 1812. The application or suit that the petitioner has to make must be made with the leave of the Court as defined in Act No. VI of 1882 and subject to such terms as that Court may impose. Section 130 fixed a separate meaning to the words "the Court" as used in this part of the Act, namely, Part IV (Winding up of Companies). The only Court that has jurisdiction to deal with the matter is the principal Court having original civil jurisdiction at the place in which the registered office of the company is situate.
2. I am told that that is the District Judge of Allahabad.
3. This application is dismissed with costs as certified.