RANDHIR SINGH, J.:- This is an application for revision which was originally instituted as a second appeal but was later treated, at the request of the appellant, as an application for revision arising out of proceedings under the Insolvency Act.

2. It appears that the applicant filed an application under the Provincial Insolvency Act for adjudging the opposite party an insolvent and the act of insolvency, which was alleged on behalf of the applicant, was that the opposite party, who was a partner in business with the applicant had not paid the profits which were due to the applicant on account of the business.

3. The application was resisted on behalf of the opposite party on the ground that such an application was not maintainable, firstly, because no relationship of creditor and debtor existed and secondly that the amount claimed was in the nature of unliquidated damages and as such the application was barred under the provisions of S.9(1) (b), Provincial Insolvency Act.

4. The Court of first instance upheld the objections raised on behalf of the opposite party and held that the amount said to be due by the opposite party was in the nature of unliquidated damages and as such the application was barred under S.9(1) (b), Provincial Insolvency Act. The applicant then went up in appeal to the District Judge who agreed with the view taken by the Court of first instance and dismissed the appeal. He has now come up in revision.

5. The first point which arises for determination in this case is whether there was a liquidated sum which was payable either immediately or at some future time. Section 9 (1)(b) of the Act is as follows:

"A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless (b) the debt is a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some future time."

6. In the present case, it is not disputed that the applicant and the opposite party were carrying on joint business, one contributing the capital land the other labour and that the amount which was alleged by the applicant to be due by the opposite party was on account of profits earned by the business. It was also alleged in the application that the opposite party had written the accounts himself and if the accounts were examined, the amount claimed by the applicant would be found due. It remains, however, to be considered whether such a claim was or was not a liquidated sum within the meaning of S.9(1) (b) of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited some rulings in which the question is said to have cropped up. In - Gangi Reddi v. Narasimha Reddi, AIR 1941 Mad 895 (A), the question which arose before the Madras High Court was if an order passed by an insolvency Court rejecting an application merely because complicated questions of fact and law would arise was a good order. The facts of the reported case were that an application to adjudge another party an insolvent was presented and the defence of the alleged debtor was that the creditors had agreed to a composition scheme and had accepted it and as such no debt was due by him. The execution of the composition deed was, however, disputed and it was under these circumstances that the insolvency Court rejected the application. It was held, however, that an application for insolvency could not be rejected merely because complicated questions of law and fact would arise. This authority is not, therefore, of much assistance to us in this case.

Another case cited on behalf of the applicant is - Ananta Kumar v. Sadhu Charan, AIR 1926 Cal 234 (B). In this case it appears that the only question which arose for determination was whether the plea taken by a debtor that no sum was due by him or that a very small sum was due could be determined by the insolvency Court and it was held that the decision of such a question was entirely the concern of the insolvency Court. In - Bibi Janbi v. Abbas Ali, AIR 1941 Nag 167 (C), the point involved was altogether different. It was conte