JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision under Sec. 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act by Balak Ram and others, creditors, against the order of the Additional District Judge of Meerut allowing the appeal of Keley and Tofa, debtors, and thereby setting aside the order of the Insolvency Judge adjudicating them insolvents. 2. Both the courts below have recorded the finding that the opposite parties had committed an act of insolvency within three months of the presentation of the insolvency petition in view of their having made bogus transfers in favour of their relations who could not have funds to purchase the property. The courts below have differed as to the scope of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec. 9(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The Insolvency Judge was of opinion that both these conditions were fulfilled and, therefore, allowed the insolvency petition and adjudicated the opposite parties insolvents. The lower appellate court, however, was of the opinion that the amount of debt was to be determined on the date the act of insolvency was committed and not on the date the insolvency petition was made. He did not also regard the decree for damages to amount to a liquidated debt. 3. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 9 lays down three conditions which can entitle a creditor to present an insolvency petition against a debtor. The first condition is that "the debt owing by the debtor to the creditor, or, if two or more creditors join in the petition, the aggregate amount of debts owing to such creditors, amounts to five hundred rupees." In this clause no reference to the act of insolvency has been made, and, consequently, the state of affairs shall have to be judged as on the date of presentation of the petition and not the date when the act of insolvency was committed. There can be no dispute in that on the date of presentation of the insolvency petition the amount of the debt was more than rupees five hundred. 4. The second condition detailed in Sec. 9(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act is that the debt must be a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time. The claim for damages, before the passing of the decree is not for a liquidated sum, but once a decree is passed, it becomes a liquidated sum payable immediately. 5. The second condition detailed in Sec. 9(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act is that the debt must be a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time. The claim for damages, before the passing of the decree is not for a liquidated sum, but once a decree is passed, it becomes a liquidated sum payable immediately. 5. The third condition is that the debtor has committed an act of insolvency. On this point both the courts below have recorded a finding against the opposite parties. The insolvency petition was thus maintainable and the Insolvency Judge acted rightly by adjudicating the opposite parties insolvents. 6. The revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is wider and can be exercised if the decision is not according to the law. The lower appellate court has clearly acted against the law and hence this Court can pass a suitable order. 7. The revision is hereby allowed ex parte with costs and the order of the Additional District Judge in appeal is set aside while that of the insolvency Judge is restored. In other words, insolvency petition is followed and the opposite parties, debtors, are adjudicated insolvents. Further action shall now be take in accordance with the law. Revision allowed.