The Indian Decisions (New Series) Being A Re-Print of All the Decisions of the Privy Council on Appeals from India and of the Various High Courts and Other Superior Courts in India Reported Both in the Official and Non-Official Reports from 1875 Bombay (1891-1892) I.L.R. 15 And 16 Bombay

Khorsi Khetsi, as the beneficial assignee of the contract, subsequently called on the defendant to ' give delivery of the goods, and offered payment of the price ; but the defendant, who was then aware of the plaintiff's insolvency, refused, on the ground that Khorsi Khetsi was not a bona fide assignee of the contract for value ; that the assignment was a sham. [...] He contended that his assignment to Khorsi Khetsi, though in fraud of the Official Assignee and the creditors of the insolvency, was not in fraud of [2] the defendant, and that by the dismissal of his petition the parties, as to their rights and liabilities under the contract, had been relegated to the position which they occupied prior to the plaintiff’s insolvency. [...] " 4. The plaintiff's pleader in opening his case then read certain correspondence that Fad passed between Khorsi Khetsi and the defendant after the date of the plaintiff's insolvency and before the due date of the contract, from which it appeared that the former, as the beneficial assignee of the contract, had called on the latter to give him delivery under it, and offered payment of the price, bu [...] But he contended that the assignment, though in fraud of the Official Assignee and the creditors of the insolvency, was not in fraud of the defendant, and that the parties by the dismissal of the plaintiff's petition had been relegated to the former position [4] in regard to their rights and liabilities under the contract as obtaining prior to the date of the plaintiff's insolvency. [...] He objected to produce the documents mentioned in the second part of the second schedule, and in his affidavit he stated the grounds of his objection as follows :— " The plaintiffs object to produce the documents set out in the second part of the second schedule, on the ground that they are private letters written by one of the plaintiffs in Bombay to one of the plaintiffs in England, and vice ver