Judgment :- 1st Counter petitioner in I.P.No.16 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha is the appellant. 2. The above petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein under Ss.7,9 and 13 of the Insolvency Act seeking the appellant to be adjudged as insolvent. It was alleged in the petition that the appellant received a sum of Rs. 5,000/-on 14-3-1987 from the petitioner undertaking to supply husk, but he failed to supply the husk for the entire amount, and that an amount of Rs. 4,056.91 was outstanding to the petitioner society as on 12-10-1977. The appellant failed to pay the amount inspite of demand made by the petitioner and hence the petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings and obtained an award in Arbitration Suit No. 42/77 on 23-7-1980 for realisation of the said amount. It was alleged that the 1st counter petitioner owed debts to other persons also. The act of insolvency alleged in the petition is the execution of Ext. A2 sale deed on 3-9-1980 in favour of 2nd respondent. 3. The appellant contested the petition by saying that he did not commit any act of insolvency and that the sale was executed in favour of the 2nd respondent for valid consideration. The property was purchased on 23-10-1978 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- by him and his daughter and that he is entitled to only half right. He also denied that he stopped business and contended that he is one of the Directors of Bowden Matting Company Private Limited. According to him, he did not owe debts to any other persons, except to the extent of an amount of Rs. 1,500/- to another society, but that was being paid off. He also claimed that amounts to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-was due to him.from others and that one of such debtors had executed a mortgage in his favour. 4. Learned Sub Judge found that there is no evidence to show that he owed any amount to others. It also found that, the property which was sold under Ext. B2 belonged to both 1st counter petitioner and his daughter and that there is nothing to show that it was sold without consideration. 4. Learned Sub Judge found that there is no evidence to show that he owed any amount to others. It also found that, the property which was sold under Ext. B2 belonged to both 1st counter petitioner and his daughter and that there is nothing to show that it was sold without consideration. However, it concluded that on a close scrutiny of the evidence, it would appear that the allegations are true and in that view, allowed the petition in part and ordered to adjudge the 1st counter petitioner as an insolvent and directed him to apply for discharge within six months from the date of order. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st counter petitioner filed A.S.No. 67 of 1987. It was brought to the notice of the appellate court that amounts due to the petitioner Society was discharged and two receipts evidencing payment were produced before the Sub Court. appellate Court has observed that the production of receipts might have been after the case was adjourned by the trial court after hearing the arguments. However, it is clear from the above observation that before the order was passed adjudging the 1st counter petitioner as insolvent, the receipts were produced which proved that the entire amount due to the petitioner was discharged. Though there is no evidence to show that the appellant had any other debts, the appellate court confirmed the order passed by the trial court adjudging the appellant as insolvent. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the courts below, 1st counter petitioner has filed this M.S. Appeal. 6. Sri. S.VenkitasubramoniaAyyar, learned counsel for appellant strenuously contended that the orders of the courts below are unsustainable. Learned counsel submitted that having found that even before the order was passed, receipts were produced by the appellant before the Sub Court evidencing the payment of entire amounts covered by the award, the appellate court went wrong in not taking notice of that fact and maintaining the order passed by the Sub Court, adjudging as an insolvent. Learned counsel submitted that having found that even before the order was passed, receipts were produced by the appellant before the Sub Court evidencing the payment of entire amounts covered by the award, the appellate court went wrong in not taking notice of that fact and maintaining the order passed by the Sub Court, adjudging as an insolvent. Learned counsel pointed out that apart from the receipts, the appellant also produced two documents before the Sub Court, one relating to a sale deed dated 4-1-1985 in his favour in respect of 98 cents of land and the other, a certificate from the Village Officer stating that he had 1/9 share in another property, the value of which would come to Rs. 18,055/-. On perusing the records, I find that these submissions are correct. 7. In this connection, I would like to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in SaratChandra Roy v. Harakchand Damani and another (AIR 1972 SC 2127). In that case also, apart from the assertion of the petitioner that there were some other debts, there was no satisfactory proof of those debts. There was also no satisfactory proof to show that the insolvent was unable to discharge the debts due from him. The prayer for adjudging the appellant as an insolvent primarily proceeded on the basis of failure of the appellant to discharge the debt due to the petitioner/ creditor. There also, it was found that the entire amounts due to the petitioner were settled, though belatedly, by sending a cheque, for the balance due to the petitioner therein. But that cheque was returned by the solicitors of the petitioning creditor on the sole ground that the amount in question had not been paid within the time fixed by the court. The Supreme Court observed that there was no justification in doing so. Dealing with the question whether the court was justified in adjudging the counter petitioner as insolvent, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "After the tender in question the appellant applied to the appellate court to review its order. That application was dismissed mainly on the ground that the petitioning creditor opposed the same and that there were differences between the two. We fail to see how the creditor was interested in the adjudication of the appellant as insolvent even after the entire amount due to him was tendered. That application was dismissed mainly on the ground that the petitioning creditor opposed the same and that there were differences between the two. We fail to see how the creditor was interested in the adjudication of the appellant as insolvent even after the entire amount due to him was tendered. The court was not justified in maintaining the adjudication of the appellant under the circumstances of the case. From the records, we are satisfied that there was no justification for initiating the insolvency proceedings in question. Non-payment of a decree promptly by itself is no ground to adjudicating a person insolvent. Appellant appears to be a person of substantial means. In this case insolvency proceedings appear to have been initiated as an alternative to execution proceedings." In my view, the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. It has not been shown that there is any other creditor or that the appellant owes any money to any other person. It cannot also be disputed that the appellant discharged the entire amount due to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I do not find any justification in maintaining the orders passed by the courts below adjudging the appellant as an insolvent. I allow the appeal and dismiss the insolvency application. No costs.