JUDGMENT :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner/debtor against the impugned order dated 26.08.2004 in I.P.No.30 of 2000 filed under Sections 6 , 7, 10, 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, wherein the petition got dismissed.

2. Case of the petitioner/debtor in brief:

a. The petitioner/debtor is eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work, except A-Schedule Property, he has no other properties. Previously, he was an agriculturist, raised cotton crop and incurred heavy loss. He has obtained sheep loan from 14th respondent, purchased lambs but the lambs died due to contagious disease. He borrowed heavy amounts from the respondents at higher rate of interest and invested the same in agriculture but incurred heavy loss and not in a position to do agriculture, since the land is fallow. Though he expressed his inability to discharge the loans to the respondents they are forcing him to repay the debts, threatening with dire consequences. 1st respondent obtained decree in O.S.No.7 of 2000 and also filed another suit O.S.No.118 of 2000 which is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Nandikotkur.

3. Contention of the 1st respondent:

a. He admits that he filed O.S.No.7 of 2000 and O.S.No.118 of 2000, and obtained against the petitioner/debtor and obtained decrees against respondent. He would submit that the petitioner is indebted to respondent Nos.2, 7 & 14 only, others are his closed relatives but not creditors. He possessed Ac.00.50 cents of wet land at Ganapuram Village and also purchased Ac.9.00 cents of land under an agreement of the sale 5 years back and enjoyed the same. Petitioner is working as President of Milk Society of Pothulapadu Village and also doing Sharaff business in the village and getting Rs.1,00,000/- per anum through his business. He finally submitted that the Petitioner suppressed his assets, accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Respondent Nos.2 and 7 filed memo adopting the counter of respondent No.1.

5. Enquiry and finding:

a. During the course of enquiry, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were witnesses examined. Exs.B-1 to B-3 were the documents marked, R.W-1 and R.W-2 are the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents. Ex.X-1 to X-3 were the documents marked through R.W-2.

b. After hearing both learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge opined that petitioner failed to make out the case for adjudication as an insolvent and that Petitioner suppressed his assets and also failed to prove his debts due to the respondents. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without costs.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant/petitioner being debtor preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the grounds referred infra;

a. Impugned order is a contrary to law and probabilities of the case.

b. The Trial Judge failed to observe that the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and erroneously dismissed the petition.

c. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 established that petitioner is unable to pay his debts and market value of the realizable assets is less than the total amount of debts.

d. The house number mentioned in Ex.X-2 belongs to the brother of appellant/petitioner who was examined as P.W.4, but the learned Judge wrongly arrived conclusion that the house belongs to the appellant thereby the case erroneous finding that petitioner has suppressed the assets.

e. Petitioner clearly discharged his burden to prove that his