CRP/6546/2004 of Maddineni Narayana, Vs Manduva Venkata Ramanaiah, on 31 December 2014

ORDER:

This revision is preferred against order dated26.03.2002 in A.S. No.38 of 1995 on the file of DistrictJudge, Ongole, where under, order dated 12.12.1994 inI.P No.24 of 1986 is confirmed.

2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:

First respondent herein filed I.P.No.24 of 1986under Section 10(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (forshort “the P.I. Act”) to adjudicate petitioner as an insolventand the insolvency Court after due enquiry declared himas an insolvent and allowed the petition. Aggrieved by thesame, revision petitioner herein, who is 1[st] respondent inthe insolvency petition preferred appeal to District Court,Ongole and the learned District Judge on a reappraisal ofthe material and evidence, dismissed the appealconfirming orders of the insolvency Court. Aggrieved bythe same, present revision is preferred.

3. Heard arguments.

4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted thatorders of both the Courts are contrary to law and theyhave not considered the objections of revision petitionerherein that the 1[st] respondent has not shown all his assets, therefore the Courts below committed illegality andthe orders are liable to be set aside. It is further submittedthat 1[st] respondent herein possessed more propertiesthan the value of debts shown in the insolvency petitionand the insolvency Court and the appellate Courts havenot considered these aspects and therefore the orders ofboth the Courts are liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, it is contended by other sidethat both the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidenceand there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrentfindings.

6. Now the point that would arise for myconsideration:

“Whether the orders of both trial Court andappellate authority are legal, correct and proper?”POINT:

7. As seen from the material, revision petitionerherein obtained a money decree against 1[st] respondentherein, and in execution of the same, he filed E.P. andwhen 1[st] respondent herein was brought under arrestwarrant, he represented in the Court that he intend to fileinsolvency petition, on that, he was released andthereafter he filed petition invoking Section 10(1) of the P.I.Act and handed over schedule properties to the officialreceiver for administration, thereafter, insolvency Court after recording the evidence of 1[st] respondent herein asPW.1 and revision petitioner herein as RW.1, acceptedthe claim of 1[st] respondent herein and adjudicated him asan insolvent.

8. The main objection of revision petitioner is that 1[st]respondent herein is having some other properties otherthan the properties mentioned in ‘A’ schedule and thoughhe deposed that 1[st] respondent herein has got Ac.5.00cents of land in Sy.No.39 and Ac.3.75 cents of land in SyNos.80/1 and 2, he failed to produce any documentaryproof or any oral evidence to substantiate the same andconsidering the same both trial Court and appellate Courtrejected the contention of revision petitioner herein. I donot find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trialCourt or by appellate Court and both the Courts have notcommitted any error in giving finding that 1[st] respondentherein is an insolvent. I also do not find any wrongexercise of jurisdiction by trial Court and appellate Court,therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with theconcurrent findings of the Courts below.

9. The powers under Section 115 of C.P.C. are verylimited, only when there is jurisdictional error or materialirregularity, this Court by exercising revisional powers caninterfere, but in this case, there is no jurisdictional errorand no material irregularity, therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of both the Courts.

10. For these reasons, the Civil Revision Petition isdevoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in thispetition shall stand closed.

Date: 31.12.2014gvl

___________________

S. RAVI KUMAR, J