Judgment :- 1. This is a petition under S. 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909 (for short, the Act) to adjudicate the respondent-debtor as an insolvent. 2. The petitioning creditors filed O.S. 2307 of 1983 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for declaration, recovery of posstssion and mesne profits and the suit ended in their favour, in the sense of granting the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and payment of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50 per month from the date of plaint till date of delivery of possesssion. The judgment debtor, who suffered by the judgment and decree, agitated the matter by filing an appeal No. 635 of 1983 on the file of this Court. The petitioning creditors also filed cross-objections regarding the quantum of mesne profits. The appeal had been dismissed and the memorandum of cross-objections had been allowed by modification of the decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 250 per mensem from the date of plaint till delivery of possession. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of the judgment in appeal and memorandum of cross objections Ex. P4 is the certified copy of the decree therein. The respondent-debtor aggrieved by the same, preferred Civil App. 5728 of 1985 on the file of the Supreme Court along with Special Leave petition No. 11220 of 1984, wherein the Supreme Court granted stay of dispossession alone pending appeal and not in other respects. Thereafter, the petitioning creditors issued insolvency notice No. 12 of 1985 Ex. P3 demanding payment of mesne profits. The respondent debtor received the same on 19-4-1986, but he did not comply with the same within the time stipulated therein. After a delay of 29 days, he took steps for setting aside the Insolvency Notice by filing Appn. No. 541 of 1986 along with Appn. No. 172 of 1986 for condoning the delay so caused in filing the application. This Court allowed both the applications as prayed for. The aggrieved petitioning creditors preferred O.S.A. 26 of 1988 and the same had been allowed by setting aside the order in Appn. No. 242 of 1986. Ex. P2 is the certified copy of the order in O.S.A. 26 of 1988. Thereafter, the petitioning creditors were forced to file the present insolvency petition, as the respondent-debtor had not paid any amount towards mesne profits. 3. No. 242 of 1986. Ex. P2 is the certified copy of the order in O.S.A. 26 of 1988. Thereafter, the petitioning creditors were forced to file the present insolvency petition, as the respondent-debtor had not paid any amount towards mesne profits. 3. On receipt of process, the respondent-debtor entered appearance through acounsel of his choice and resisted the insolvency, petition by filing a counter. 4. In proof of the averments in the petition, the petitioners chose to examine P.W. 1, who is none else than the elder brother of the first petitioner and he in fact deposed to all the facts as stated in the petition. 5. Even at the outset, it may be stated without any fear of contradiction that the petition deserves to be allowed, in the circumstances of the case. The contention now raised were more or less the very same contentions as raised before the Division Bench of this court in O.S.A. 26 of 1988. The contention urged before the Bench is reflected in paragraph 4 of the judgment, which is in the following terms: “Firstly, the decree ought to become final and secondly it had not been stayed. In this case, to us, it is sure that the decree for possession alone had been stayed and the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court will render the finality at large.“ In repelling this contention, the Bench observed in paragraph 5 as follows— “It should be remembered in this connection that merely because an appeal has been filed, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for appellants, the finality of the decree is not lost. At any rate, the liabilty to pay mesne profits which is in the nature of a money decree can be executed without any impediment whatsoever. This position is admitted by both sides before us. Under those circumstances, we are unable to see how the mere pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court will destroy the finality of the decree.” In such circumstances, there is no other go except to affix my seal of approval to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which negatived the same contention, as are now urged before me by the respondent debtor. 6. 6. Apart from these contentions, one more contention, which cannot be considered to be a serious and significant one, merits consideration in an elaborate fashion and the same revolves on the question of variance of the amounts claimed in the insolvency notice and in the present petition. A cursory look at the salient provisions adumbrated in S. 12 of the Act would indicate that this contention of the respondent-debtor is bereft of the substance. The condition precedent under that section for the creditor to file a petition is aggregate of the amount of debts owing to the creditor must amount to Rs. 50G and the debt is a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time. There can be no manner of doubt whatever that in the instant case the amount due by the respondent debtor is more than Rs. 500 on the date when the insolvency notice was given. It is to be remembered here that the debt, in the instant case, is one arising as a result of the decree for mesne profits, awarded by court, in a sum of Rs. 250 per mensem from the date of plaint till delivery of possession. The amount of debt will go on increasing by the process of passage of time and in such circumstances it cannot be stated that the debt to be paid by the respondent debtor is not a liquidated sum giving rise to an action to be taken in insolvency proceedings. This contention, as such, also bristles next to nothing. 7. In the result the petition is allowed adjudging the respondent as an insolvent with costs.