P LAKSHMI NARASIMHAIAH Vs. K SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (for short The Act'). The petitioner herein is the debtor. He filed I.P.No.14 of 1984 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole under Section 10 of the Act praying that he may be declared as Insolvent. On 4-11-1986 the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole allowed the petition. Dissatisfied with the said Judgment, the creditor filed an appeal A.S.No.8 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole. On the question whether the petitioner has proved his inability to discharge his debt, the learned Additional District Judge, held in favour of the creditor on the ground that the insolvent did not make a declaration as postulated under Section 13 (1) (e) (iii) of the Act; he set aside the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole in the I.P. and allowed the appeal dismissing the I.P. by his judgment dated: 5-10-1987. The correctness of the judgment is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that compliance of Section 13 is not mandatory and for the first time the learned Additional District Judge on his own raised the question of compliance of Sec.13, accordingly he allowed the appeal dismissing the I.P. Section 13 of the Act, submits the learned counsel, relates to the contents of the application filed under Section 10 of the Act. It deals with various particulars to be incorporated in the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the requirement is mandatory and the appellate Court has rightly dismissed the petition.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is: whether non-compliance of Section 13 (1) (e) (iii) of the Act entails dismissal of the petition?