Judgment :- This petition was filed by AR. Chinnanarayanan as petitioning creditor against (1) M.P. Jayaraj (debtor) and (2) Southern Investments represented by Abraham Thomas (transferee) under Sections 9 (b), 10, 11 and 12 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency ActIII of 1909 for adjudicating Jayaraj (first respondentdebtor) as insolvent and for directing the vesting of his assets with the Offical Assignee according to law and to set aside the transfer of the property No. 29, Sixth Main Road, Raja Annamalaipuram in favour of Southern Investments (Second respondent) in August, 1987. 2. The allegation of the petitioning creditor was that Jayaraj along with Bangalore Trading Corporation borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/under on promissory note dated 16-4-1983 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum, but defaulted. It was also alleged in the petition that the first respondent owes debts and liabilities to various creditors to the tune of Rs. 20,000/It was further alleged that the first respondent has closed this business at Madras and transferred his only property in favour of the second respondent in fraud of the creditors and that he has committed an act of insolvency. 3. The first respondent contested the matter by filing counter. Even evidence of the petitioners side and the first respondents side was recorded as the matter went up for enquiry. At that stage, on 21-9-1988, the counsel for the petitioning creditor represented that the claim of the petitioning creditor was satisfied and that he was not proceeding with the petition further. But, in the meanwhile, six persons claiming them selves to be creditors had filed applications in Application Nos. 325, 326, 327, 329 and 330 of 1988 on 23-8-1988 and Application No. 346 of 1988 on 30-8-1988. All these applications were filed by the respective applicants/creditors for substituting themselves in the place of the petitioning creditor in I.P. No. 61242 of 1987 on the ground that the petitioning creditor did not proceed with due diligence on his petition. Objection was raised in the form of counter on behalf of Jayaraj who is the first respondent in LP. All these applications were filed by the respective applicants/creditors for substituting themselves in the place of the petitioning creditor in I.P. No. 61242 of 1987 on the ground that the petitioning creditor did not proceed with due diligence on his petition. Objection was raised in the form of counter on behalf of Jayaraj who is the first respondent in LP. No. 61 of 1987 and who is shown as a debtor in all the substitution applica tions mentioned above stating that he does not owe any liability for any liquidated sum to those applicants and that there is no jural relationship or creditor and debtor between the applicants and himself and that unless this is proved, those ap plicants cannot be substituted in the place of the original petitioning creditor. In support of such a contention, the debtor Jayaraj has been allowed to give evidence as R.W.1 subsequently. 4. I find that the contention on behalf of the debtor Jayaraj and the evidence sought to be adduced by “him are not in conformity with the due procedure prescribed under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Once the petitioning creditor in the main Insolvency Petition is not proceeding with the petition and the Court finds that the said petitioning creditor has not proceeded on his petition with due diligence, the Court has to automatically substitute the other. creditor/creditors who have come forward with applications for substitution in the place of the original petitioning creditor, of course, in the order of priority on point of time in filing the applications. If that is so, the creditor has filed the Application No325 of 1988 has to be substituted as the petitioning creditor in the place of the original petitioning creditor, namely AR. Chinnanarayanan. The other applicant/creaditor may follow one after the other if the creditor in Application No. 325 of 1988 will not proceed with the petition with due diligence. At this stage, there is no question of proof of jural relationship of creditor and debtor and the proof of debt, liability and act of insolvency against the debtor, namely, Jayaraj. This point will arise only after substitution of the applicant/creditor in Application No. 325 of 1988 in the place of Original petitioning creditor. In the circumstances, the objection raised on behalf of the debtor and the evidence adduced by him must be held as irrelevant and the same have to be rejected. 5. This point will arise only after substitution of the applicant/creditor in Application No. 325 of 1988 in the place of Original petitioning creditor. In the circumstances, the objection raised on behalf of the debtor and the evidence adduced by him must be held as irrelevant and the same have to be rejected. 5. Section 92 of the Presidency Towns Insol vency Act which is the relevant provision for sub stitution of the creditor, is as follows:— “92. Power to change carriage of petition Where the petitionerdoes not proceedwith due diligence on his petition, the Court may substitute as petitioner any other creditor to whom the debtor is indebted in the amount required by this Act in the case of a petitioning creditor”. This provision is analogous to Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and it is as follows:— 16. Power to charge carriage of oroceedings-. Where the petitioner does not proceed with due diligence on his petition, the court may substitute as petitioner any other creditor to whom the debtor may be indebted in the amount required by this Act, in the case of a petitioning creditor”. There is absolutely no change in the sub sections, effect of both the provisions which deal with the circumstances in which a creditor may ber substituted in the place of the original petitioning creditor. 6. It is common ground that a petitioning creditor in the insolvency petition is represenative of the whole body of creditors and if he comes to an arrangement with the debtor and seeks not to prosecute the petition any further, the presump tion is that he is not proceeding on the petition of with due diligence, substitution under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and S. 92 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act contemplates a petition of the petitioning creditor that is alive and pending and has not been dismissed. The peti tion presented by the first petitioning creditor must be held to enure to the benefit of all the creditors of the insolvent on that date. Any other creditor whose debt exists on the date of filing of the insolvency petition and who has come forward with a request for substitution in the place of the first petitioning creditor, can be allowed to proceed with the insolvency petition as petitioning creditor. 7. Any other creditor whose debt exists on the date of filing of the insolvency petition and who has come forward with a request for substitution in the place of the first petitioning creditor, can be allowed to proceed with the insolvency petition as petitioning creditor. 7. Acareful considration of section 92 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act indicates that even an express order of substituttion is not necessary and substitution can be inferred from the Court continuing the proceedings of the application of the creditor applying to be substituted. After all, the applicant who seeks to substitute himself as a creditor in the place of the first petitioning creditor has to show in his affidavit that the debtor owes liability to the applicant for a liquidated sum exceeding Rs. 500/and that the debtor has committed an act of insolvency. Once the first petitioning creditor goes out, the substituted creditor takes the place or the first creditor ab initio and is entitled to prosecute the original petition as if is werehis own petition. At that state of substitution, the creditor who is substituted cannot be asked to prove the existence of jural relationship of creditor and debter the truth of the liability of the debtor and the act of insolvency. Such proof will be required on the part of the substituted creditor only after substitution and not before. Even if one creditor who has been substituted in the place of the original petitioning creditor would fail to proceed with the petition with due diligence, the next-creditor who would seek substitution of himself can stake him claim for substitution in the place of the original petitioning creditor and this may take place in turn depending upon the creditors who have filed application for substitution. 8. In the present case, we find that the debtor Jayaraj calls upon every appplicant who seeks to substitute himself in the place of the original petitioning creditor to prove the jural relationship of creditor and debtor, the liability, the act of insolvency etc. even before their substitution in the place of the original petitioning creditor takes place. This is absolutely incorrect. As already pointed out, the question of proof of the relationship of creditor and debtor act of insolvency etc., will arise only after substitution of the creditor and not before. even before their substitution in the place of the original petitioning creditor takes place. This is absolutely incorrect. As already pointed out, the question of proof of the relationship of creditor and debtor act of insolvency etc., will arise only after substitution of the creditor and not before. If the contention raised on behalf of the debtor in the present case is accepted, it would mean that the substituting creditor has to produce proof not only before substitution, but also after substituion and this will amount to double exercise to court and double jeopardy to the creditor. Certainly, Section 92 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act does not contemplate such a procedure. 9. I hold that no evidence can be adduced in proof of the claim of the substitution creditors before they are substituted in the place of the original petitioning creditor, that the applicant/creditors will be substituteed automatically one after the other according to the priority of their applicationsin point of time and that it is open to the debtor to raise his defence according to law after substitution. 10. Accordingly, the applicant/creditor in Application No. 325 of 1988 is substituted in the place of the orignal petitioning creditor in I.P. No. 61242 of 1987 and the same shall be enquired.