L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS C. M. S. A. under section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency act, 1920 (for short the Act ) is filed by the petitioner in I. P. No. 5 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal, against the judgment in A. S. No. l 1 of 2003 of the Court of in Additional District Judge, kurnool, at Nandyal, dated 28-8-2003. ( 2 ) THE appellant filed the above I. P. under the provisions of the Act, to declare him as insolvent. According to him, the assets possessed by him are not sufficient to discharge the debts, which he owes to as many as 40, creditors who were impleaded as respondents in the I. P. ( 3 ) APPELLANT examined himself as p. W. I and during the course of his cross- examination, certain documents were marked suggesting that he held some items of property. At that stage, his Counsel represented to the Trial Court that he does not intend to press the I. P. The same was not acted upon. Thereafter, appellant filed a memo reporting to the Court that he does not intend to press the I. P. The Trial Court passed a detailed order dated 22-7-1997 refusing to accede to the request of the appellant. The trial Court also observed that in case, the appellant is not willing to prosecute the matter, it shall be open to the contesting respondents to get themselves transposed as petitioners and to prosecute the matter. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, appellant filed C. R. P. No. 3971 of 1997 before this court. This Court rejected the revision and upheld the order of the Trial Court. ( 5 ) AT a subsequent stage, the 1st respondent herein, who is also the 1st respondent in the I. P. filed a memo stating that he has no objection for the appellant being declared as insolvent. The other respondents in the I. P remained ex parte. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court considered the memo and passed an order dated 29-12-1998, declaring the appellant as insolvent. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 29-12-1998, appellant filed A. S. No. ll of 2003 in the Court of m Additional District judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Through its order dated 28-8-2003, the lower appellate Court rejected the appeal. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 29-12-1998, appellant filed A. S. No. ll of 2003 in the Court of m Additional District judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Through its order dated 28-8-2003, the lower appellate Court rejected the appeal. ( 7 ) SRI M Ram Mohan, for Sri M. S. R. Subramanyam, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that, since the appellant was reluctant in proceeding with the matter, the 1st respondent had filed LA. No. 40 of 1998 under Order 1, Rule 10 of cpc to transpose him as petitioner, and in that view of the matter, the very character of the proceedings changed. He submits that once such a step was taken by the 1st respondent, the trial Court was under an obligation to issue notice to the appellant, and that the Trial Court ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under section 24 of the Act before it had passed any order. He submits that there was no basis for the Trial Court to pass the orders dated 29-12-1998 at a time when the appellant himself was not interested in prosecuting the I. P. ( 8 ) SRI P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Trial Court did nothing more than declaring the appellant as insolvent, as prayed for by him and that the lower appellate Court had discussed the matter on the settled principles of law and undisputed facts. ( 9 ) AS observed earlier, the appellant approached the Court of Subordinate Judge, nandyal, by filing I. P. No. 5 of 1992, to declare him as insolvent. The Act provides for initiation of proceedings to declare a debtor as insolvent, either at the instance of the debtor himself, or the creditors. In the present case, the debtor himself sought for such declaration, by impleading as many as 40 creditors. After service of notice, the trial was taken up. Appellant deposed as p. W. I. The 1st respondent alone was contesting the matter, and the other respondents remained ex parte. During the course of cross-examination of P. W. I, certain documents were marked. These documents indicated that the appellant held certain items of property. After service of notice, the trial was taken up. Appellant deposed as p. W. I. The 1st respondent alone was contesting the matter, and the other respondents remained ex parte. During the course of cross-examination of P. W. I, certain documents were marked. These documents indicated that the appellant held certain items of property. ( 10 ) THE appellant appears to have sensed that, it is no longer profitable to pursue the I. P in view of these developments and had instructed his Counsel not to press the I. P. The representation made by the counsel for the appellant was not taken into account by the Trial Court. Thereupon, the appellant came forward with a specific memo, expressing his intention not to press the I. P. The Trial Court passed a detailed order dated 22-7-1997 on this memo. It took note of the fact that the appellant had prosecuted the matter since 1992 and it is after five years that he intended to discontinue the same. The trial Court observed that acceding to the request of the appellant would have the effect of rendering the claims of the creditors time-barred and that such a course of action cannot be permitted. It also observed that since the act provides for prosecution of the matter by the creditors in the event of the debtor not evincing interest, it rejected the memo and permitted the creditors to prosecute the matter, in case the appellant does not intend to proceed with the matter. This order was upheld by this Court in CRP No. 3971 of 1997. ( 11 ) WITH the dismissal of the C. R. P, two courses were open to the 1st respondent. viz. , to get himself transposed as a petitioner in case he senses that the appellant is not evincing interest to prosecute the matter; or to participate in the proceedings, if they are being continued in the then existing form. ( 12 ) IT is true that the 1st respondent filed LA. to transpose him as petitioner. Thereafter, he did not pursue the same, and the array of the parties remained the same as it was at the time of filing the I. P. ( 13 ) SO far as the appellant is concerned, his evidence was already recorded and he did not choose to examine any further witnesses. to transpose him as petitioner. Thereafter, he did not pursue the same, and the array of the parties remained the same as it was at the time of filing the I. P. ( 13 ) SO far as the appellant is concerned, his evidence was already recorded and he did not choose to examine any further witnesses. If the 1st respondent entertained an idea that the appellant ought to have taken some more steps in the matter, it was required of him, to get himself transposed as petitioner. However, he felt that nothing more needs to be done, from the side of the appellant. He has also reconciled to the fact that the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant can be taken at its face value. It was in this context, that he filed a memo stating that he does not object for the appellant being declared as insolvent and the properties covered by Exs. Bl and B2 be made over to the official receiver, to liquidate the debts incurred by the appellant. From the record, it does not appear that appellant has raised any objection for this course of action. The Trial Court acceded to the request of the 1st respondent and passed an order dated 29-12-1998 declaring the appellant as insolvent and making over the properties covered by Exs. Bl and B2 to the official liquidator to liquidate the debts. ( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court ought to have issued notice to his client, while acting on the memo filed by the 1st respondent. This does not appear to be correct. A reading of section 24 of the Act discloses that, it is only when a creditor presents an application to declare the debtor as insolvent, that the necessity to issue notice to the debtor arises. When the debtor figures as petitioner before the Court, the question of issuance of any notice to him does not arise either under the provisions of the Act or under ordinary principles of law and logic. ( 15 ) IT is not in dispute that the appellant did not change his character till the order dated 29-12-1998 came to be passed. Appellant appears to have been caught by surprise and unawares, when the 1st respondent took a wise step to support his claim and to declare the appellate as insolvent. ( 15 ) IT is not in dispute that the appellant did not change his character till the order dated 29-12-1998 came to be passed. Appellant appears to have been caught by surprise and unawares, when the 1st respondent took a wise step to support his claim and to declare the appellate as insolvent. Having realized that he has fallen to the trap laid by him, appellant challenged the order of the Trial Court. There was absolutely nothing either on merits or in procedure which could have come to the rescue of the appellant. The lower appellate court had discussed the matter from the correct perspective and the order under appeal does not call for any interference. ( 16 ) THE CMSA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.