Judgment Subba Rao, J.-These two connected appeals arise out of orders passed by the District Judge of Cuddappah in insolvency. The insolvent filed I.A. No. 45 of 1943 under sections 35 and 38 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It was alleged in the petition that the insolvent proposed to satisfy the creditors at the rate of a rupee for a rupee on the amounts of the debts due to them and therefore requested the Court to approve of his proposal and annul the adjudication. In the schedule annexed to the application the total amount of the debts was shown at Rs. 15,016-0-6. The progress of this application is disclosed in the B diary. After notices were served on all the creditors, the application was posted for enquiry to 15th December, 1943. Some of the creditors, respondents 2, 4, 5, 14 and 15 filed a counter stating that they would agree only if the amounts payable under the promissory notes in their favour and interest up to the date of payment were paid. The insolvent undertook to pay like that. The learned District Judge then adjourned the application to 17th January, 1944, for payment or deposit. The insolvent did not take advantage of this opportunity, and did not pay the amount within the time given. Instead, he filed applications under section 50(2) against some creditors for expunging or reducing the debt due to them. The amount due to respondents 1, 4 and 14, who did not agree to the proposal, was more than one-fourth in value of the total amount of the debt due by the insolvent. The learned District Judge therefore dismissed the application filed under sections 35 and 38 of the Provincial Insolvency Act as also the applications filed under section 50(2) on the ground that they were not maintainable in view of his dismissal of the main application. The insolvent has preferred C.M.A. No. 672 of 1946 against the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the application under sections 35 and 38 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and C.M.A. No. 673 of 1946 against the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the application under section 50 (2)of the Act. Mr. Umamaheswaram, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned District Judge approved of the composition and was therefore wrong in dismissing the application filed under sections 35 and 38 of the Act. Mr. Umamaheswaram, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned District Judge approved of the composition and was therefore wrong in dismissing the application filed under sections 35 and 38 of the Act. In regard to the application under section 50(2) of the Act he argued that the existence of an approved composition was not a condition precedent for the maintainability of an application under that section. The first argument ignores the obvious facts in the case. From the aforesaid narration of the facts it is clear that the learned District Judge did not purport at any point of time to approve of the scheme put before him. Indeed, as the creditors opposed it, he gave a further opportunity to the insolvent by adjourning the matter to enable the insolvent to comply with the requirements of section 38, which he did not avail himself. In the circumstances, the learned Judge was right in dismissing the application on the ground that a majority in number and three-fourths in value of all the creditors whose debts were proved did not resolve to accept the proposal. We cannot also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant in regard to his second contention. The material portion of section 50 of the Act reads: “The Court may also, after like inquiry, expunge an entry or reduce the amount of a debt upon the application of a creditor where no receiver has been appointed, or where the receiver declines to interfere in the matter or, in the case of a composition or a scheme, upon the application of the debtor.” Under this sub-section, a debtor’s right to apply depends upon the existence of the composition or the scheme under the provisions of the Act. It is argued that a debtor could apply under section 50, even before the composition was approved of by the Court. A comparison of the provisions of sections 38 and 50 brings out the distinction between the proposal for composition and the approved composition. The principle also is apparent. Before the composition, the Official Receiver would be the person to represent the creditors whereas after the composition is accepted by the Court, the debtor is given the right to apply under the said section. The same view has been accepted in Ganga Sahai v. Mukaram Ali Khan1. The principle also is apparent. Before the composition, the Official Receiver would be the person to represent the creditors whereas after the composition is accepted by the Court, the debtor is given the right to apply under the said section. The same view has been accepted in Ganga Sahai v. Mukaram Ali Khan1. In Ghosh on Provincial Insolvency Act, the principle underlying the section, is stated as follows: “So long as insolvency exists, the insolvent cannot be allowed to challenge the correctness of the debts entered in the schedule, and, therefore, his application disputing the correctness of those debts and requesting the Court to enquire into the accounts of the creditors cannot be entertained. But when insolvency is annulled, as would be the case when the composition or scheme is accepted, he can apply for expunging or reducing a debt entered in the schedule.” We agree with the above statement of the law. If so, it follows that the learned District Judge rightly dismissed the application under section 50(2), as the scheme was not approved by him. In the result, C.M.A. No. 672 of 1946 is dismissed with the costs of respondents 4, 5 and 15, and C.M.A. No. 673 of 1946 is dismissed with the sole respondent’s costs. K.C. ----- Appeals dismissed.