The admissibility of the pronote, proof of debt, and the timeliness of the petition under Sec. 9 (1) (c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the original petitioner is directed against the order dated 29-5-1973 passed by the District Judge, mysore in Insolvency case No. 2 of 1968 on his file, dismissing the petition instituted by the creditor under Sec. 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, to declare respondents 1 and 2 in the petition as insolvents and to take cosequent steps against them.

( 2 ) THE petitioner averred in his petition that he was a creditor of respondents 1 and 2. That respondents 1 and 2 were indebted to him having borrowed Rs. 1,000/- on the foot of a pronote dated 14-4-1976 and that they failed to repay the same on demand and further that they committed an act of insolvency inasmuch as they transferred the properties mentioned in the schedle to the petition in favour of respondent-3, by a registered sale deed dated 18-12-1967. He further averred by an amendment to the petition that in the first week of August 1968, they transferred some of the moveables in favour of respondent-3 which also Amounted to an act of insolvency. Hence, he prayed for declaring respondents 1 and 2 as insolvents and for appointing a receiver with regard to the properties etc. The petition was resisted by respondents 1 and 2. They denied that they were indebted under the pronote to the petitioner. They denied having received any amount under the pronote. They contended that the petition was beyond three months. According to them they had not committed any act of insolvency.

( 3 ) THE learned District Judge who enquired into the petition recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3. P. W. 3 is Puttaswamappa the petitioner. P. W. 2 is Sri Vishakantiah. He has deposed that he attested the pronote. P. W. 3 somaraja Urs has attested the sale deed. He has also spoken with regard to the loan Respondents did not examine themselves before the learned district Judge, Ex-P1, the copy of the sale deed was got marked. The learned! district Judge appreciating the evidence on record held that the debt was not proved, that the pronote was not admissible in evidence, that the act of insolvency was not proved and further the petition was not maintainable as it was beyond three months of the alleged act of insolvency. In that view he dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up in appeal before this Court.

( 4 ) THE learned advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned District Judge was not justified in holding that the pronote was not admissible as it was on general stamp paper, that he was not not justified in holding that the debt was not proved, that the learned District Judge was not justified in holding that the act of involvency was not proved and further that the petition itself was beyond time. As against that the learned Advocate appearing for the contending respondents argued supporting the order of the learned district Judge. The points therefore that arise for our consideration in this appeal are:1. Whether the learned District judge was justified in holding that the pronote was not admissible as the same was on the general stamp (impressed) paper? 2. Whether the learned District judge was justified in holding that the debt was not proved? 3. Whether the learned District judge was justified in holding that the act of insolvency was not proved? 4. Whether the learned District judge was justified in holding that the petition was beyond three months of the act of insolvency and hence not maintainable?

( 5 ) IT is no doubt true, and there is no dispute about it, that the recovery of stamps on the pronote is governed by the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. Section 2 (11) of the Indian Stamp act defines 'duly stamped' thus: "duly stamped; as applied to an instrument means that the instrument bears an adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount and that such stamp has been affixed or used in accordance with law for the time being in force in India;" section 10 of the Stamp