GOWRIM Vs. N SIVASANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioning Creditors challenging the Order made in CMA No. 24/1996, confirming the Order of dismissal of the application filed under Or. 9 R. 9 CPC, declining to restore I. P. No. 6/1991.

(2.) AVERMENTS, as projected by the Petitioners, are as follows :-Petitioning Creditors have filed Petition under Section 7 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, [for short, 'the Act'], to adjudicate the Respondents as insolvents and other reliefs. I. P. No. 6/1991 was dismissed for default on 14. 02. 1995, for the non-appearance of the Petitioners. Petitioners have filed I. A. No. 4/1995 under Or. 9 R. 9 CPC to restore I. P. No. 6/1991. That application was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the application is belated one and reasons for non-appearance are not properly substantiated. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have preferred C. M. A. No. 24/1996 before the District Court, Cuddalore. Confirming the Order of dismissal of the application under Or. 9 R. 9 CPC, the C. M. A. was dismissed.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned Orders, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Petitioners being Creditors, both the Courts lost sight of the reasons stated for the non-appearance. Placing reliance upon AIR 1966 SC 918 [yenumula Malludora Vs. Peruri Seetharathnam and others], it was submitted that acts of insolvency once committed cannot be wiped off by subsequent acts. Arguing further, the learned Counsel submitted that Insolvency Petition could be dismissed only for the reasons stated in Section 25 of the Act.