Judgment :- Petitioner in insolvency petition 1/87 on the file of Munsiffs Court, Mavelikkara is the appellant in this miscellaneous second appeal. The appellant as the judgment-debtor in O.S.57/85 of Munsiffs Court, Adoor, was liable to pay substantial amount decree-debt and as he was unable to pay his debt he filed the application. The Munsiff adjudicated the petitioner as insolvent. The decree-holder in O.S.57/85, who was made the only respondent in the insolvency proceedings, challenged the order passed by the Munsiff, in A.S.166/88. Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara allowed the appeal and the order passed by the Munsiff was set aside. The reason for setting aside the order was that under S.10 of the Insolvency Act the petition could be filed only if the petitioner is unable to pay his debts and for a single debt the petition is not maintainable. This finding is challenged by the appellant herein. 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to understand the scope of S.10 of the Insolvency Act, which reads: "10. Conditions on which debtor may petition: (1) A debtor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition, unless he is unable to pay his debts; and (a) his debts amount to five hundred rupees, or3 (b) he is under arrest or imprisonment in execution of the decree of any Court for the payment of money, or (c)an order of attachment in execution of such a decree has been made, and is subsisting, against his property." In the instant case admittedly the amount payable by the appellant under the decree obtained by the respondent is more than Rs.500/-. But apart from this decree debt, the appellant has no other debts. On an interpretation of S.10 of the Insolvency Act, I do not think that the appellant should have more than one debt to maintain an application under S.10. S.13 of the General Clauses Act reads: "13. In all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (1) words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and (2) words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa." Going by the principles in S.13(2) of the General Clauses Act the word'debts' used in S.10 of the Insolvency Act could as well -be considered as a debt. Therefore an insolvencypetition can be filed even against a single creditor, provided the petitioner fulfils the other conditions laid down in the Act. It is the minimum debt of Rs.500.- that is to be taken into consideration. Whether it is payable to one person or to two is of no consequence. The view taken by the learned District Judge is not correct. 3. In the instant case after the adjudication order the petitioner filed an application for discharge. He did not take proper steps to proceed with the discharge application. Therefore, the adjudication order passed by the Munsiff has become cancelled. Under S.42 of the Insolvency Act after the order of adjudication the debtor within the period prescribed by the court shall apply to the Court for an order of discharge. Such an application was filed by the petitioner-appellant. However, he did not prosecute that petition properly and the application for discharge was dismissed. So the order of adjudication by the Munsiff has also become ineffective. As the order passed by the Munsiff is no longer in force, I do not think that it is necessary to allow this appeal and revive the order of the Munsiff. In the result, the miscellaneous second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The parties to bear their costs.