KASA VENKATA REDDY Vs. SYED BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :The revision petitioner filed the revision against the order dated 6.7.2000 passed in I.P. No.4 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur in

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: Syed Basha filed I.P No. 4 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur praying to adjudge him as insolvent under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act (for short 'the Act') contending that he was running a welding shop at Proddatur and he incurred heavy debts. While doing welding work his eye sight was affected and therefore he sold away his machinery and at present he was doing brokerage in selling the engine parts and motors and getting a sum of Rs. 30/- or Rs. 40/- per day. Though he had no sufficient means to maintain his family, the revision petitioner, who was first respondent in I.P No. 4 of 1998, filed execution petition and obtained orders of arrest in E.P.No. 27 of 1995 and hence he was constrained to file I.P since he was not in possession of any property except the wearing apparel. The revision petitioner, who is the first respondent, filed counter denying the avermems and contended that Syed Basha possessed sufficient means and property worth Rs. 5,00,000/- and he was evading to pay the decree debt. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.X1 and X2 were marked. The first respondent examined himself as RW1 and on his behalf Ex.B1 to B9 were marked. After appreciating the entire evidence, the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be adjudged as insolvent and accordingly the petition was allowed.

(3.) Aggrieved against the orders passed in I.P .No. 4 of 1998, the revision petitioner filed the present revision contending that the Court below failed to note that the respondent-petitioner had sufficient means to pay the decree debt and has got substantial properties. The Court below failed to appreciate the observations made in the execution petition filed by the revision petitioner for arrest of the respondent. The lower Court failed to appreciate the admissions made by the witnesses and came to an erroneous conclusion. For the above said reasons, the revision may be allowed.