JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This Letters patent o appeal has arisen out of the judgment and X order, dated 14-5-2001, passed in F.A. No. 5.197 of 1996, whereby the appeal has been o dismissed and the order, dated 2-7-1999, passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Civil Misc. (Insolvency) Case No. 1 of 1996, has been upheld. 2. The material facts giving rise to this Letters Patent appeal may be noted as follows: By an award, passed in Title Suit (MAC) 5 of 1986, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, directed the present appellant, as owner of the offending vehicle, to pay Rs. 1,70,000/- as compensation to the claimant. As the compensation, so awarded, was not paid to the claimant, a recovery proceeding was initiated. On receiving the repeated notices for payment of the said compensation amount with the interest, which had accrued thereon, the appellant herein, made an application under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, seeking to be declared an insolvent and for absolving him from liability to pay the amount due under the said award. By order, dated 2-7-1996, passed in the Insolvency Proceeding, which had given rise to Civil Misc. (Insolvency) Case No. 9 of 1974, the learned District Judge, South Tripura, held to the effect that since the said recovery case stood registered with the Certificate officer, Udaipur, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge, South Tripura, the Court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the present appellant seeking to be declared insolvent and that the application for insolvency be returned to the petitioner-appellant so that the same can be filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Against the dismissal of his said application, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 75 read with Sections 4 and 11 of the said Act. This appeal came to be registered as F. A. No. 179 of 1996 aforementioned. Against the dismissal of his said application, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 75 read with Sections 4 and 11 of the said Act. This appeal came to be registered as F. A. No. 179 of 1996 aforementioned. By the order, dated 14-5-2001, the learned single Judge has held to the effect that since in MAC Case No. 5/86, the present appellant had already contested the claim proceedings and had surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Court at South Tripura and the award had been passed after according hearing to the parties concerned and that the recovery proceeding was also pending within the district of South Tripura, the learned District Judge, West Tripura, had acted legally and justifiably in returning the application to be filed in an appropriate Court. The conclusions, so reached by the learned Single Judge, are under challenge in the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 4. For appreciation of the real controversy involved in the present appeal, it is necessary to take note of Section 11 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, which reads as follows: 11. Court to which petition shall be presented. Every insolvency petition shall be presented to a Court having jurisdiction under this Act in any local area in which the debtor ordinarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or if he has been arrested or imprisoned, where he is in custody; Provided that no objection as to the place of presentment shall be allowed-by any Court in the exercise of appellate or provisional jurisdiction unless such objection was taken in the Court by which the petition was heard at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. 5. From a careful reading of Section 11 of the said Act, it becomes abundantly clear that an insolvency petition can be entertained by a Court within whose jurisdiction the debtor, ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or if he has been arrested or imprisoned, where he is in custody. In other words, under Section 11, a person can file insolvency petition in the Court of the District Judge within whose territorial jurisdiction he, ordinarily, resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. In other words, under Section 11, a person can file insolvency petition in the Court of the District Judge within whose territorial jurisdiction he, ordinarily, resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. That apart, an insolvency petition can also be filed in the Court of the District Judge within whose territorial jurisdiction the debtor has been arrested or imprisoned. There is nothing in Section 11 of the said Act to show that insolvency petition has to be filed in the Court under whose local jurisdiction the recovery proceeding or any demand for payment made against the person, who seeks to be declared insolvent, is pending. Viewed thus, it is clear that it was not necessary, in the present case, for the present appellant to institute insolvency petition at Udaipur, where the recovery proceeding was pending. 6. The question, therefore, which, now, falls for determination is as to whether in the case at hand, the insolvency petition could have been presented in the Court of the District Judge, West Tripura? While answering this question, it may, once again, be pointed out that a debtor may, as envisaged under Section 11, make an insolvency petition at the place, amongst others where he, ordinarily, resides. 7. In the present case, in the petition seeking to be declared insolvent, the petitioner has stated that he resides in a rented house of one Shri Jahar Das located under Chandrapur Police Station, District West Tripura. This assertion of the present appellant, made in the said petition, had not been disputed till 2-7-1996, when the learned District Judge, West Tripura, passed the impugned order. In view of the fact that the petitioner's statement made in the said petition discloses that he was, ordinarily, residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge, West Tripura, a petition for being declared insolvent could have been filed, in the light of the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act, in the Court of District Judge, West Tripura. 8. 8. What logically follows from the above discussion is that the order, dated 2-7-1996, passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, returning the insolvency petition to the present appellant on the ground that the District Judge, West Tripura, does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the insolvency petition is ex facie contrary to the law contained in that behalf and the learned single Judge fell into error by not noticing the provisions of Section 11 and the effect thereof. 9. Because what have been pointed out above, we are firmly of the view that the present appeal need to be allowed with appropriate directions. 10. In the result, and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned order, dated 14-5-2001, passed in F. A. No. 179 of 1996, as well as the order, dated 2-7-1996, passed in Civil Misc. (Insolvency) Case No. 1/96 are hereby set aside. The Civil Misc. Case No. 1/96 aforementioned is hereby remanded to the learned District Judge, West Tripura, for disposal thereof in accordance with law. 11. Before parting with this appeal, we, however, make it clear that we have merely decided the question as to whether the District Judge, West Tripura, has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with, and dispose of, the petition made by the present appellant seeking to get himself declared insolvent and whatever have been observed above by us shall have no bearing on the merit of the said petition. Appeal allowed