M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29.10.2010 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in A.S. No. 124 of 2007, the present appeal is preferred by the respondents in I.P. No. 8 of 2006, wherein the 1st respondent was adjudged as an insolvent having found that he had committed an act of insolvency under Section 6(1)(b)of the Provincial Insolvency Act (for short 'the Act').

2. For convenience, the parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred to as appellants and respondents.

3. The respondents claiming to be creditors of the 1st appellant filed petition under Section 9 of the Act to adjudge him as insolvent on the ground that he alienated his substantial part of his property to defeat and delay the claims of creditors, alleging that the 1st appellant herein borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- for construction of building agreeing to repay the same with interest, but failed to pay the same due to the 1st respondent herein. On 03.08.2002, on enquiry, the 1st respondent came to know that the 1st appellant with a view to defraud the creditors executed a sham and nominal document i.e. gift settlement deed in favour of appellants 2 and 3 on 22.06.2002 vacating the schedule property and practically disappeared from his ordinary place of residence. Thus, the 1st appellant allegedly committed act of insolvency under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act and the debt of the respondents is more than Rs. 500/-.

4. Before the trial Court, appellants 1 and 2 herein filed common counter and the same was adopted by the 3rd appellant herein by filing a memo. The appellants herein denied the material allegations of the petition while contending that the property was gifted to appellants 2 and 3 without any intention to defraud or delay the creditors and that the 1st appellant is able to discharge the debt and prays to dismiss the insolvency petition.

5. Originally, IP was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, and the same was returned for presentation before a proper Court on the ground that the Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, had no jurisdiction. On its return, IP was represented before the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, and proceeded with the enquiry.

6. During the course of enquiry, the respondents herein were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 and that appellants herein were examined as RWs1 to 3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.6.

7. The Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, after considering oral and documentary evidence, adjudged the 1st appellant as insolvent declaring Ex. A.4-Gift Deed as null and void and directed the Official Receiver, Kurnool, to take the property for administration.

8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the District Court, Kurnool and that the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, confirmed the said order though the plea of limitation was raised on account of return of the petition by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, and its representation before the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. But in para 13 of its judgment, the appellate Court discussed about the limitation and ultimately concluded that the petition is in time.

9. Indisputably, IP was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, on 12.08.2002 and the same was registered as I.P. No. 44 of 2002, but it was returned by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, for want of territorial jurisdiction on 28.02.2006 and the same was represented before the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur on 08.02.2006.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the time spent in wrong Court not having jurisdiction is saved under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, but the delay in representing the same is 11 days i.e. after its return is not saved under the said Section and in such a case, the representation is deemed to be a fresh presentation of IP before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal.

11. As seen from the decretal order in I.P. No. 8 of 2006 dated 29.08.2