JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act 1920 against the order of the Addl. District Judge Gangapur City dated 24.7.1981 declaring the appellant as insolvent. 2. An application under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was filed by M/s Kailash Chand Govind Prasad for declaring Kundal Mal Mool Chand and Madan Lal as insolvents mentioning that there was debt of Rs. 2486.38p of the appellant and two others aforesaid on the respondent firm and they were also liable to the debt of Rs. 5 lakhs some of them were mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the application. It was asserted in the application that with an intention to defeat the claim of the creditors the debtors aforesaid had transferred some of the properties and had further paid loans by entering into adjustments and compromises. They had also removed their ornaments. According to them most of the properties of the debtors had been attached in execution of the decrees obtained against them by the creditors. In para 4 the application details of the properties of the debtors are given. Asserting that the debtors had disposed of some of the properties within 3 months of the presentation of the application the applicant-firm prayed for adjudging the debtors as insolvents. The application filed on 29.8.1972 was contested by Kundan Mal and Mool Chand denying that they had committed any act of insolvency. They further gave details in paragraph 11 of the written statement of the properties which were owned and possessed by them other than those which were mentioned in the application for adjudgment as involvements. In paragraph 12 of the written statement details of the amount due to the debtors from various persons and departments were mentioned. On behalf of the creditors Puddilal and Ganga Sahai were produced as witnesses who stated that the debtors were unable to pay the debts which had been taken on loan by them. Before the order dated 24.7.1981 adjudging the debtors as insolvents waw passed the Insolvency Judge appointed Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Receiver. Thereafter on 24.7.1981 he passed the order challenged by means of this appeal. 3. Before the order dated 24.7.1981 adjudging the debtors as insolvents waw passed the Insolvency Judge appointed Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Receiver. Thereafter on 24.7.1981 he passed the order challenged by means of this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned Insolvency Judge without recording any finding that the appellant had committed an act of insolvency declared the debtors (appellant) as insolvents. Learned counsel urged that the court below manifestly erred in adjudging the appellant as insolvent without recording a finding as to commission of any act so as to be covered by Section 6 of the Act. There is no finding in the impugned order holding that the appellant Mool Chand had committed an act of insolvency by transferring his properties. What the court below has done is that it noticed Section 9 of the Act for the purpose of deciding the question of entitlement of the applicant-firm namely M/s. Kailash Chand Govind Prasad to file the application for adjudging the appellant and two others as insolvents. In the absence of any finding that the aforesaid debtors had committed any act of insolvency contemplated by Section 6 of the Act the court below should not have allowed the application. 4. The learned counsel for creditors-respondents relied on Section 6(2)(b) of the Act for drawing the presumption against Mool Chand and others for the view that the transfer of some property belonging to them in execution of the decree had since been admitted this court can presume that to be an act of insolvency and that the order challenged does not suffer from any error. The order of the court below does not proceed on that basis but even presuming it to be so if the properties of Mool Chand and others had been sold in execution of the decree that would not amount to an act of insolvency as such act does not fall within Section 6(2)(b) of the Act. In fact the Insolvency Judge had to record a definite finding that Mool Chand and two others had committed an act of insolvency as defined under section 6 of the Act. This was however not done. 5. Moreover, in this case it was necessary to establish by the creditors for declaration of the appellant as insolvent that the appellant had transferred any property within 3 months of the presentation of the petition. This was however not done. 5. Moreover, in this case it was necessary to establish by the creditors for declaration of the appellant as insolvent that the appellant had transferred any property within 3 months of the presentation of the petition. In this case no finding to that effect has been recorded. 6. In view of what has been said above it appears that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Insolvency Judge be directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law by referring evidence led by the parties on record. As the matter is quite old the interest of justice requires an early decision. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.7.1981 is set aside and the court below is directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law and observations made in this judgment within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this. Office is also directed to send the record of this case to the concerned court immediately. Parties shall bear their own costs.Appeal allowed : Case remanded. *******