P VENKATESHWARA REDDY Vs. K VEERANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short "the Act"), is directed against the judgment in C.M.A.No.89 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Ongole, dated 19-7-2004, confirming the order dated 12-10-2001 in I.A. No.387 of 2001 in I.P.No.7 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi.

(2.) Respondents 13 to 21, 23, 27 and 28 in I.P. No.7 of 2001, are the petitioners herein.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are as under : Respondents 1 to 5 herein, filed I.P. No.7 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, under Section 10 of the Act, to adjudge the estate of late Kotu Guruvulu in their hands, to declare them as insolvents, and to vest the estate of late Kotu Guruvulu in the Official Receiver. It was pleaded by them that their father Kotu Guruvulu was indebted to respondents 1 to 28 therein, and that he died without discharging the debts. It was also pleaded that the property left behind by him was grossly insufficient to discharge the debts of the said creditors, and since the creditors were demanding discharge of the debts incurred by their father late Kotu Guruvulu, they may be declared as insolvents. The revision petitioners, who are some of the creditors in I.P. No.7 of 2001, filed I.A.No.387 of 2001, to summon other creditors, arrayed as respondents 1 to 12 in the main I.P. to produce the promissory notes said to have been executed by late Kotu Guruvulu in their favour for the purpose of sending them to fingerprint expert for comparison, so as to prove that the said debts, shown in A. Schedule, were false and fictitious. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was alleged that I.P.No.7 of 2001 was filed with all false allegations, and as a matter of fact, late Kotu Guruvulu was not indebted to the respondents 1 to 12 in I.P.No.7 of 2001. It was also alleged that late Kotu Guruvulu never executed any promissory notes in favour of respondents 1 to 12, and if the said debts are proved to be false, the estate held by the petitioners is quite sufficient to discharge the genuine debts due to the other creditors. The respondents herein, who are the petitioners in I.P. No.7 of 2001, filed counter opposing the said application stating that the question of proving the debts arises only after making an order of adjudication, and after the property is vested in the Official Receiver. It was also contended that if any of the creditors fails to prove their debts, they cannot get the dividends and, therefore, the direction sought in I.A. No.387 of 2001 is misconceived.