ORDER This Revision Petition filed under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short "the Act"), is directed against the Judgment in C.M.A.No.89 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Ongole, dated 19-7-2004, confirming the order dated 12-10-2001 in I.A.No.387 of 2001 in I.P.No.7 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. 2. Respondents 13 to 21.23, 27 and 28 in I.P.No.7 of 2001, are the petitioners herein. 3. The facts in brief are as under: Respondents 1 to 5 herein, filed I.P.No.7 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, under Section 10 of the Act, to adjudge the estate of late Kotu Guruvulu in their hands, to declare them as insolvents, and to vest the estate of late Kotu Guruvulu in the Official Receiver. It was pleaded by them that their father Kotu Guruvulu was indebted to respondents 1 to 28 therein, and that he died without discharging the debts. It was also pleaded that the property left behind by him was grossly insufficient to discharge the debts of the said creditors, and since the creditors were demanding discharge of the debts incurred by their father late Kotu Guruvulau, they may be declared as insolvents. 4. The revision petitioners, who are some of the creditors in I.P.No.7 of 2001. filed I.A.No.387 of 2001, to summon other creditors, arrayed as respondents 1 to 12 in the main I.P. to produce the promissory notes said to have been executed by late Kotu Guruvulu in their favour for the purpose of sending them to finger print expert for comparison, so as to prove that the said debts, shown in A. Schedule, were false and fictitious. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was alleged that I.P.No.7 of 2001 was filed with all false allegations, and as a matter of fact late Kotu Guruvulu was not indebted to the respondents 1 to 12 in I.P.No.? of 2001. It was also alleged that late Kotu Guruvulu never executed any promissory notes In favour of respondents 1 to 12 and if the said debts are proved to be false the estate held by the petitioners is quite sufficient to discharge the genuine debts due to the other creditors. of 2001. It was also alleged that late Kotu Guruvulu never executed any promissory notes In favour of respondents 1 to 12 and if the said debts are proved to be false the estate held by the petitioners is quite sufficient to discharge the genuine debts due to the other creditors. 5; The respondents herein, who are the petitioners in I.P.No.7 of 2001, filed counter opposing the said application stating that the question of proving the debts arises only after making an order of adjudication, and after the property is vested in the Official Receiver. It was also contended that it any of the creditors fail to prove their debts, they cannot get the dividends and, therefore, the direction sought in I.A.No.387 of 2001 is misconceived. 6. The Court below having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, by order dated 1210-2001, while holding that the question with regard to genuineness of the debts requires consideration when the application for discharge comes before the Court and therefore the Court need not enquire into the genuineness of the debts at that stage dismissed I.A.No.387 of 2001. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal, being C.M.A.No.89 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the District judge, Ongole, which was dismissed by Judgment, dated 19-7-2004. Hence, this revision petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the material on record. 8. It is clear from the facts narrated above that in I.P.No.71 of 2001, filed by the sons of late Kotu Guruvulu, 28 creditors were made parties, who were arrayed as respondents 1 to 28, alleging that late Kotu Guruvulu was indebted to them. The specific plea of the revision petitioners, who were arrayed as respondents 13 to 21, 23, 27 and 28, is that the claim of the petitioners in the insolvency petition that late Kotu Guruvulu was indebted to respondents 1 to 12, 22, 24 to 26. is false. The specific plea of the revision petitioners, who were arrayed as respondents 13 to 21, 23, 27 and 28, is that the claim of the petitioners in the insolvency petition that late Kotu Guruvulu was indebted to respondents 1 to 12, 22, 24 to 26. is false. While pleading that late Kotu Guruvulu never executed any promissory notes in their favour, it was prayed that the respondents 1 to 12 may be directed to produce the promissory notes said to have been executed by late Kotu Guru\lulu in their favour, so as to send them to the finger print expert for comparison of the thumb impressions found on them Soth the Courts below while relying upon the decision in P. Dharma Rao v. Vatluru Co-op. Bank Corporation Bank declined to grant such relief on the ground that the question with regard to the genuineness of the debts need not be gone into at that stage. 9. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act shows that under Section 4, the Court is empowered to decide all questions, whether of title or priority or of any nature whatsoever, for the purpose of doing complete justice, or making a complete distribution of property. What are the acts of Insolvency have been enumerated under Section 6. Section 7 provides for presentation of insolvency petition, either of a creditor or a debtor, on which the Court may make an order of adjudication. Section 10 of the Act mentions the conditions on which debtor may file an Insolvency Petition. Section 13 of the Act, specifies the particulars to be contained in the Insolvency Petition, which include the amount and particulars of all pecuniary claims against the debtor, together with the names and residents of his creditors so far as they are known to him. Under Section 24, on the day fixed for hearing, the Court shall require proof that the creditor or the debtor, as the case may be, is entitled to present the petition, and that the debtor has committed the act of insolvency alleged against him. However, the proviso to Section 24(1)(a) makes it clear that such satisfaction of the Court with regard to inability of the debtor to pay his debts shall be on prima facie grounds and at that stage the Court is not bound to hear any further evidence thereon to power there debts - Rejected on the 10. However, the proviso to Section 24(1)(a) makes it clear that such satisfaction of the Court with regard to inability of the debtor to pay his debts shall be on prima facie grounds and at that stage the Court is not bound to hear any further evidence thereon to power there debts - Rejected on the 10. Section 24 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant may be extracted hereunder; "24. Procedure at hearing; (1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the petition, or on any subsequent day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the court shall require proof of the following matters, namely:- (a) that the creditor or the debtor, as the case may be, is entitled to present the petition: Provided that, where the debtor is the petitioner, he shall, for the purpose of proving his inability to pay his debts, be required to furnish only such proof as to satisfy the court that there are prima facie grounds for believing the same and the court, if and when so satisfied, shall not be bound to hear any further evidence thereon; (b) that the debtor, if he does not appear on a petition presented by a creditor, has been served with notice of the order admitting the petition; and (c) that the debtor has committed the act of insolvency alleged against him. 11. In P. Dharma Rao v. Vatluru Co-op. Bank (1 supra), when an allegation was made that the debtor had suppressed some of his assets and that he had shown some bogus debts in his Petition, this Court held that the matter requires to be taken into consideration when the application for discharge comes before the Court. 12. The said view expressed by the learned Single Judge was not accepted by a Division Bench in a later decision in Dasari Srihari Rao v. Talluri Harinadha Babu The Division Bench held as under: "Thus, Section 13(1)(e) of the Act imposes an obligation on the debtor making the application, to furnish the particulars of all his property in his application and as could be seen from the opening words of the section which mandates by the use of the expression ·shall". Though mere use of the expression “shall" do not by itself is the determinative factor to decide whether the provision is mandatory or directory, having regard to the fact that one of the questions in an insolvency application being that the debtor is unable to pay his debts, could only be ascertained on prima facie view of the fact that the value of the debts of the debtor exceeded his assets and as such he is unable to discharge them and also in view of the fact that the assets of the insolvent vest in the Court on making the order of adjudication under Section 28(2) of the Act, the prescription under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act is mandatory. Under Section 25 of the Act, the court is empowered to dismiss the application if the Court is not satisfied of the debtors right to present the petition. Thus, a cumulative reading of the above provisions makes it clear Without any ambiguity that the debtor shall show that he is unable to discharge his debts and satisfy one of the conditions stipulated in Section 1 0 and on his furnishing all the information as is required by Section 13, he can be adjudicated as an insolvent. If on the failure of the above, the application is liable for rejection under Section 25(2) of the Act." 13. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rattan Singh], while considering an identical question, held that the insolvency. Court is not precluded from going into the question, whether the alleged debtor is really a debtor and liable to pay and that the insolvency Court can, both at the time of hearing the petition for adjudication of a person as an insolvent and subsequently at the stage of the proof of debts, re-open the transaction on the basis of which the creditor had secured the Judgment of a Court against the debtor. 14. In the light of the scheme of the provisions under the Insolvency Act and the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Dasari Srihar Raos case (2 supra), the conclusion of the Courts below that the objection raised by the creditors as to the genuineness of some of the debts requires no consideration cannot be accepted. 14. In the light of the scheme of the provisions under the Insolvency Act and the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Dasari Srihar Raos case (2 supra), the conclusion of the Courts below that the objection raised by the creditors as to the genuineness of some of the debts requires no consideration cannot be accepted. May be that at that stage what is needed is prima facie proof of the inability of the debtor to pay the debts, however, undoubtedly, it is a matter to be taken into consideration while making an order of adjudication under Section 27 of the Act. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12-10-2001 in I.A.No.387 of 2001, as confirmed in C.M.A.No.89 of 2001, is set aside and the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to consider I.A.No.387 of 2001 afresh, in the light of the observations made above, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs.