Maintainability of a second winding-up petition was not barred merely because an earlier petition remained pending elsewhere.

A fresh petition for compulsory winding up was considered maintainable in the East Punjab High Court even though an earlier winding-up petition by the same petitioner against the same company was still pending in the Lahore High Court. Article 13 of the High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947 preserved pending original-side proceedings for determination by the Lahore High Court, but it did not create a bar against a second petition in a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was treated as a stay provision, not a rule requiring dismissal. The existence of the earlier petition therefore did not by itself defeat maintainability, and the single Judge's dismissal of the application was incorrect.

---

---

Issues: Whether a fresh petition for compulsory winding up of a company was maintainable in the East Punjab High Court while an earlier winding-up petition by the same petitioner concerning the same company was still pending in the Lahore High Court.

Analysis: Article 13 of the High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947 left pending original-side proceedings in the Lahore High Court to be heard and determined by that court, but it did not create a rule barring a second petition in a court of competent jurisdiction. The only general procedural rule relied upon was section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which contemplates stay of proceedings and not dismissal. No principle of law or authority was shown for the proposition that a second winding-up petition by the same petitioner cannot lie merely because an earlier similar petition is pending elsewhere. The existence of an earlier pending petition therefore did not by itself destroy the maintainability of the later petition.

Conclusion: The fresh winding-up petition was maintainable notwithstanding the pending Lahore High Court petition, and the dismissal of the application by the single Judge was incorrect.

---