THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.4642 OF 2006 ORDER:- The revision is filed against the order in CMA No.31 of 2002 on the file of the court of IV Additional District Judge, Nellore confirming the order in I.A.No.179 of 1999 in I.P.No.4 of 1992 and the revision petitioner herein is the purchaser of the property and second respondent in the Insolvency Proceedings. A creditor’s insolvency application was filed challenging the alienation infavour of the revision petitioner and the petition was allowed on 06-09-1996 ex parte. The revision petitioner herein did not contest the said Insolvency Proceedings and while allowing the petition, all the properties were directed to be vested in the Official Receiver, Nellore and he was directed to apply for discharge within one year. Thereafter, it appears an application was filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.112 of 1997 to set aside the ex parte order but it was dismissed on an enquiry on 18-02-1998 and thereby the order of adjudication became final. Consequently, the Official Receiver has filed I.A.No.179 of 1999 to annul the sale in favour of the revision petitioner herein and the revision petitioner herein has claimed that the application is barred by time as it was filed beyond two years from the date of the alienation. It was affected on 16-09-1992. It was also further pleaded that the revision petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and consequently no order of annulment can be passed. Both the courts did not accept the contentions of the revision petitioner and accordingly allowed the application filed by the Official Receiver and challenging that order, the present revision petition is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of the lower appellate court suffers from any infirmity? POINT:- The counsel for the revision petitioner tried to canvass that the revision petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and the lower courts have not properly appreciated the evidence. Evidently, even if the petitioner has not participated in the original inquiry before declaring the first respondent as an insolvent and in an inquiry under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short “the Act”), the court can pass necessary orders for annulment after considering all the contentions raised by the revision petitioner. The order of the insolvency court clearly goes to show that the value of the property was said to be more than Rs.3,50,000/- whereas the consideration said to have been paid under the sale deed is very less and the petitioner is not even the resident of the place whether the property was situated and consequently the bona fides of the petitioner are not accepted. The appellate court also did not accept the same. Therefore, both the courts on question of fact found that the plea of bona fides of the petitioner is not true. In this revision, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the following decisions. 1 . Pragallapati Gangaraju VS. K.Satyanarayana and others([1]) 2. Johrilal Soni Vs. Smt.Bhanwari Bai ([2]) 3. Nandigam Ramarao and others Vs. Burugupalli Srikrishnamurthy and others ([3]) In this case, an order has been passed by the Insolvency Court vesting the property in the Official Receiver and consequently there is no infirmity. According to Section 53 of the Act, the application has to be filed within two years after the date of transfer and it is voidable as against the Receiver and may be annulled by the court. In this case, evidently, the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner was challenged within three months since it is a creditor’s insolvency proceedings and any application of adjudication relates back to the date of presentation of the petition. The reading of Section 53 of the Act shows that the application has to be made within two years from the date of transfer. The Official Receiver evidently does not get jurisdiction unless the Insolvency petition was allowed. In this case Insolvency Petition was allowed on 06-09-1996 and the present application was filed on 22-09- 1999 and under Article 137 of the Limitation Act when no limitation is prescribed, the period of limitation is three years. Therefore, when the transfer of the property was affected on 16-09-1992 the order of insolvency court relates back to the petition which was filed on 26-11- 1992 and the challenge is within two years and the application filed by the Official Receiver for annulment is also within 3 years from the date of order of the insolvency court as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, there are no infirmities for interference with the order of the lower court. Accordingly, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The point is therefore answered. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 12-10-2011 TSNR [1] 2006(1) ALT 467 [2] AIR 1977 S.C. 2202 [3] AIR 1962 A.P. 226 (V 49, C 61)