JUDGMENT : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner/debtor against the impugned order dated 26.08.2004 in I.P.No.30 of 2000 filed under Sections 6, 7, 10, 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, wherein the petition got dismissed. 2. Case of the petitioner/debtor in brief: a. The petitioner/debtor is eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work, except A-Schedule Property, he has no other properties. Previously, he was an agriculturist, raised cotton crop and incurred heavy loss. He has obtained sheep loan from 14th respondent, purchased lambs but the lambs died due to contagious disease. He borrowed heavy amounts from the respondents at higher rate of interest and invested the same in agriculture but incurred heavy loss and not in a position to do agriculture, since the land is fallow. Though he expressed his inability to discharge the loans to the respondents they are forcing him to repay the debts, threatening with dire consequences. 1st respondent obtained decree in O.S.No.7 of 2000 and also filed another suit O.S.No.118 of 2000 which is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Nandikotkur. 3. Contention of the 1st respondent: a. He admits that he filed O.S.No.7 of 2000 and O.S.No.118 of 2000, and obtained against the petitioner/debtor and obtained decrees against respondent. He would submit that the petitioner is indebted to respondent Nos.2, 7 & 14 only, others are his closed relatives but not creditors. He possessed Ac.00.50 cents of wet land at Ganapuram Village and also purchased Ac.9.00 cents of land under an agreement of the sale 5 years back and enjoyed the same. Petitioner is working as President of Milk Society of Pothulapadu Village and also doing Sharaff business in the village and getting Rs.1,00,000/- per anum through his business. He finally submitted that the Petitioner suppressed his assets, accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 7 filed memo adopting the counter of respondent No.1. 5. Enquiry and finding: a. During the course of enquiry, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were witnesses examined. Exs.B-1 to B-3 were the documents marked, R.W-1 and R.W-2 are the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents. Ex.X-1 to X-3 were the documents marked through R.W-2. 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 7 filed memo adopting the counter of respondent No.1. 5. Enquiry and finding: a. During the course of enquiry, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were witnesses examined. Exs.B-1 to B-3 were the documents marked, R.W-1 and R.W-2 are the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents. Ex.X-1 to X-3 were the documents marked through R.W-2. b. After hearing both learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge opined that petitioner failed to make out the case for adjudication as an insolvent and that Petitioner suppressed his assets and also failed to prove his debts due to the respondents. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without costs. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant/petitioner being debtor preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the grounds referred infra; a. Impugned order is a contrary to law and probabilities of the case. b. The Trial Judge failed to observe that the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and erroneously dismissed the petition. c. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 established that petitioner is unable to pay his debts and market value of the realizable assets is less than the total amount of debts. d. The house number mentioned in Ex.X-2 belongs to the brother of appellant/petitioner who was examined as P.W.4, but the learned Judge wrongly arrived conclusion that the house belongs to the appellant thereby the case erroneous finding that petitioner has suppressed the assets. e. Petitioner clearly discharged his burden to prove that his assets are much less than his debts. 7. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K. Viswanatham, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, learned counsel for the respondent No.14. None represented on behalf of the other respondents. The appeal against respondent No.12 is dismissed for default vide orders dated 29.02.2016. Arguments advanced at the Bar 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the reason for dismissal of the debtors’ insolvency petition is on the grounds that the petitioner suppressed his properties as well as the debts which are contra to the material and evidence placed on record. Arguments advanced at the Bar 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the reason for dismissal of the debtors’ insolvency petition is on the grounds that the petitioner suppressed his properties as well as the debts which are contra to the material and evidence placed on record. Learned counsel would urge that except friends and relatives, no one can lend the amounts just because the dates of the Pro-notes are not given the Trial Court is erred in disbelieving the alleged loans. The documents filed through R.W-2 i.e., Exs.X-1 and X-2 have no relevance and bearing since they are bereft of even house number. Learned counsel would submit that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence in right perspective dismissed the petition. Ex.X-2 shows the house belongs to the petitioners’ brother who categorically deposed the same as P.W.4 refuting the arguments referred supra. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that he filed O.S.No.118 of 2000 for recovery of money against the petitioner on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge court, Nandikotkur and got attached the petition scheduled property before Judgment. The said suit was decreed on 28.11.2000. Respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.32 of 2002 in O.S.No.118 of 2000 for the sale of the attached property and the property was auctioned on 02.08.2002. Respondent No.1 being Decree Holder purchased the scheduled land in court auction for Rs.66,000/- and sale was also confirmed on 03.10.2002 and a sale certificate was issued in his favour. 10. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed E.A.No.273 of 2002 seeking delivery of the property which was purchased in E.P.No.32 of 2002. The said property was delivered to him on 18.11.2002 by Court Amine. Petitioner filed the Insolvency Petition after passing of the decree in O.S.No.118 of 2000 and he suppressed his properties in the petition. He purchased a house site under Registered Sale Deed on 24.07.1981 to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents. Petitioner also purchased another side of Ac.0.02 cents on 01.02.1985 under the Registered Sale Deed from one Maddaiah in Sy.No.791 of Pothulapadu Village. Respondent No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the petition scheduled property from the date of the delivery. All the respondents shown in the petition are not contesting the matter, and respondent Nos.1, 2, 7, 14 alone contested, as others are not real creditors of the petitioner. 11. Respondent No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the petition scheduled property from the date of the delivery. All the respondents shown in the petition are not contesting the matter, and respondent Nos.1, 2, 7, 14 alone contested, as others are not real creditors of the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would further submit that there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order and prays to dismiss appeal. Learned counsel for Respondent No.14 would submit that the petitioner discharged the loans due to their bank and they have nothing to do with the matter as they are no more creditors to the petitioner. 12. It is to be noted that Respondent Nos.2 and 7 though contested the matter before the Trial Court they did not choose to make their appearance or submit their objections in the appeal. Points for Determination 13. Having heard the submissions of both learned counsel, now the points that would emerge for the determination in this appeal are : a. Whether the impugned order rejecting the claim of the debtor to declare him as insolvent is sustainable under law? 14. Before going to discuss the point framed supra, it is relevant to extract Section 10 of Provincial Insolvency Act for quick reference which reads as under; “Section10. 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; or (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. (2) A debtor in respect of whom an order of adjudication. [whether made under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or under this Act] has been annulled, owing to his failure to apply, or to prosecute an application for his discharge, shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition without the leave of the Court by which the order of adjudication was annulled. [whether made under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or under this Act] has been annulled, owing to his failure to apply, or to prosecute an application for his discharge, shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition without the leave of the Court by which the order of adjudication was annulled. Such Court shall not grant leave unless it is satisfied either that the debtor was prevented by a reasonable cause from presenting or prosecuting his application, as the case may be, or that the petition is founded on facts substantially different from those contained in the petition on which the order of adjudication was made.” 15. Section 10 postulates the conditions on which debtor may file an insolvency petition. It essentially provides that the debtor must establish the presence of Section 10 (1) (a) to (c) andthat he is unable to pay his debts. This interpretation of provision has been fortified by a catena of decisions viz., Bonagiri Yellalu v. Nagulavaram Chenchu Subbaiah, AIR 1972 AP 221 . It is further essential for the petitioner to establish that his liabilities are more than his assets and he has not committed an act of insolvency within a period of preceding six months of filing the petition. Hence, the burden is on the petitioner to show that the respondents are the real creditors’ and he has to discharge the loans to them. 16. There is no dispute on filing of O.S.No.118 of 2000 by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner, obtaining decree, filing E.P, bringing the scheduled property to the sale, purchasing the said property by the respondent No.1 in Public Auction, obtaining delivery of the scheduled property in execution. The record further shows except Respondent No.1, no other respondents filed any suit against the petitioner herein for recovery of any amount due to them. It is apt to mention that if the petitioner is not declared as insolvent in the petition, creditors would lose their opportunity to file suit for recovery of amount as it may cross the period of limitation. This is due to the obvious reason that mere filing of insolvency petition would not keep the clock frozen and limitation begins to run as usual. Except Respondent No.1, no other made any such attempt to recovery of any alleged debts payable by the petitioner. Petitioner admittedly discharged the loans due to the bank. This is due to the obvious reason that mere filing of insolvency petition would not keep the clock frozen and limitation begins to run as usual. Except Respondent No.1, no other made any such attempt to recovery of any alleged debts payable by the petitioner. Petitioner admittedly discharged the loans due to the bank. Respondent Nos.,2 and 7 though contested before the Trial Court, did not show any interest in the present appeal. These lack of efforts by the other alleged creditors would strengthen the version against the petitioner. 17. As can be seen from the impugned order, petitioner could not give the details of the pro-notes under which he borrowed amounts from the respondents. It was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that respondent Nos.,4, 8, 9, 15, 16 marked as relatives. There is some force in the contention that to boost up the figure of the debts, the petitioner might have referred the names of his relatives. P.W.1 further admitted that respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.7 of 2000 and O.S.No.118 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Nandikotkur and obtained decree. 18. Respondent in support of his contention examined the Panchayat Secretary as R.W-2, who testified that the petitioner purchased Ac.2.50 cts in Sy.No.791 from one Maddaiah. At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner takes this court to Para 11 of the impugned order which shows that P.W.4 purchased the property mentioned in the Sale Deed vide Ex.X-3. 19. Be that as it may, for the sake of the arguments, the properties were purchased by P.W.4 who is the brother of petitioner and he constructed the house. Exs.X-1 and X-2 show the Tax Revision Registers relate to P.W.2 who is the brother of P.W.1. In the present case, petitioner failed to prove that all the respondents shown in the petition are his real creditors. Such being the case, there is no merit in the appeal warranting interference of this Court in the impugned order 20. As can be seen from the impugned order, the learned Judge opined that the petitioner suppressed and boosted up the liabilities. Even, if the contention of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner suppressed the properties is not established obviously, the petitioner failed to prove his liabilities due to the creditors. As can be seen from the impugned order, the learned Judge opined that the petitioner suppressed and boosted up the liabilities. Even, if the contention of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner suppressed the properties is not established obviously, the petitioner failed to prove his liabilities due to the creditors. When the debts are not real debts, there is nothing wrong in dismissing the claim preferred by the petitioner to declare him as insolvent. The reason is obvious. Before declaring any debtor as insolvent, Court must satisfy itself that the debtor is unable to pay his debts, when it comes to the notice of the Court that some debts are not real and are fictitiously made for the purpose of the petition with that motive, the petition has to be dismissed. In the light of aforesaid mentioned discussion, this Court is of the view that impugned order does not brook interference of this Court in appeal. 21. In result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.