A SANTHANNA Vs. G NAGABHUSHANAM
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-40
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 07,1992

ANGADI SANTHANNA Appellant
VERSUS
G. NAGABHUSHANAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PEDDA ISWARA REDDY [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.40 of 1991 in I.P. No.6 of 1991 under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. praying to permit them to come on record as respondents 4 and 5 in the Insolvency Petition. The petitioners stated in the affidavit that I.P. No. 6 / 91 is filed by respondent No.l herein in collusion with respondents 2 to 4, who are the debtors. It is stated that the petitioners are creditors and they filed suits, O.S. Nos. 218 / 90 and 290 / 90 'against respondent No.2 to 4 for recovery of certain amount. The trial Court seems to have decreed the suits and E.P. No.18/91 was filed by one of the decree-holders against the judgment- debtors and some of the items of the properties were sold in auction and were purchased by one of the decree-holders. Likewise, the 1st petitioner also filed E.P. No. 17 / 91 for sale of certain items of the properties. At that stage, respondent No.1 filed I.P. No. 6 / 91 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Adoni for declaring the judgment-debtors as insolvent. It is also contended that the petition is filed solely for the purpose of preventing the trial Court in passing an order in E.P.No.17/91 which was directed finally for orders on 23-10-1991.
(2.)Smelling the design of the judgment-debtor, petition under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was filed inter alia alleging the mala fide intention and pleaded for bringing them as respondents 4 and 5 to the above Insolvency Petition, so that they could contest the merits or otherwise of the petition. The lower Court somehow was not convinced and dismissed the interlocutory application on 25-11-1991. As against the said dismissal, the present revision petition is filed.
(3.)Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of revision petition in the High Court. He contended that as against any order or decision taken by the insolvency court, a remedy is provided under Section 75 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (for short "the Act"). For the purpose of analysing the issue, it would be helpful to read the provisions of Section 75 of the Act. Section 75 (1) reads as under:
"75. Appeals:- (1) The debtor, any creditor, the receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction by a court subordinate to a District Court may appeal to the District Court, and the order of the District Court upon such appeal shall be final- Provided that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made in any appeal decided by the District Court was according to law, may call for the same and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit: Provided, further, that any such person aggrieved by a desision of the District Court on appeal from a decision of a subordinate Court under Section 4 may appeal to the High Court on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."
Thus, according to Sri Veerabhadrayya, as against a decision or order made by the insolvency court in exercise of its insolvency jurisdiction, only an appeal lies to the District Court and, therefore, the present revision filed by the petitioners before the High Court is not maintainable.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.