THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.S.A. No.10 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 08.10.2010, in Appeal Suit No.142 of 2007, on the file of IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, whereunder and whereby, the order and decree, dated 09.07.2007, in Insolvency Petition No.53 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dismissing the petition filed under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, (for short, “the Act”) to declare the appellant as an insolvent, were confirmed. 2. The appellant/petitioner filed the Insolvency Petition stating that he is working as a Labourer in a Tea Centre at Kakinada; that previously he did business at Vijayawada and borrowed some amounts from the respondent for his business purpose; that he incurred huge loss in the said business and is unable to discharge the debts due to the respondent; that the respondent filed O.S.No.156 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and obtained a decree; that thereafter, the respondent filed E.P.No.211 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for realization of the decreetal amount by way of arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison and hence, the Insolvency Petition. 3. The respondent filed counter resisting the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is one of the partners of the Charminar Tea Centre Group at Kakinada; that to avoid his liability, the petitioner mentioned his occupation as Labourer; that the contra allegations in the petition are false; that the petitioner obtained loans from Bhimana Muddu Krishna, Saikam Saibaba, P.V.D. Prasad and Puppala Durga Prasad of Vijayawada; transferred the amounts to his native place; purchased immovable properties in Kerala in the name of his relatives and closed his business; that when the petitioner was brought under arrest in execution proceedings, he filed the present Insolvency Petition to declare him as insolvent; that the petitioner failed to prove that he sustained loss in the business and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following point is raised for consideration by the trial Court: “Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as insolvent u/s. 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act as prayed for?” 5. During enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined, but no document was marked, and on behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 to 3 were examined, but no document was marked. 6. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out any case to declare him as insovlent and accordingly, dismissed the Insolvency Petition filed by the petitioner. On appeal, the order and decree of the trial Court were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner. 7. Heard. 8. Under Section 10 of the Act, the burden is on the appellant to show that because of loss sustained by him in the business, the existing assets are not sufficient to discharge the liabilities. Therefore, there must be a plea and evidence to substantiate the same. Except the oral and interested testimony of PW.1, no other evidence is adduced on behalf of the appellant to show that the appellant sustained loss in the business, which he used to run at Vijayawada. For running a Tea Stall there must be a licence and certain documents need to be maintained. The appellant has to maintain books of account for the said purpose. None of the documents relating to running of the Tea Stall is filed by the appellant to establish his case that he sustained loss in the Tea Stall business. His evidence is not supported by any other evidence. No doubt, law does not require that evidence of a witness has to be corroborated with other evidence to establish the plea. When the insolvency Court has not placed any implicit reliance on the interested testimony of PW.1, he cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable witness and in such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 has to be corroborated with some other evidence. Such evidence is lacking. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly found that the appellant failed to establish that he sustained loss in the Tea Stall business. 9. On the other hand, the evidence of RWs.1 to 3 would go to show that the appellant used to run Tea Stall business; that he borrowed several amounts from not only the respondent but also from other creditors and with a view to evade his liability to pay the amounts to the various creditors, the present Insolvency Petition is filed by the appellant with oblique motive. The evidence of RWs.1 to 3 appears to be probable in view of the fact that the appellant indebted several amounts to several persons. Since the appellant is liable to pay the amounts to the creditors, the Insolvency Petition appears to have been filed by the appellant. In the absence of any evidence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the Insolvency Petition and the same was rightly confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, the impugned judgment needs no interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the C.M.S.A. is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 11, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.S.A. No.10 OF 2011 Between: Chollot Puthiyapura Muneer .....APPELLANT AND Ganta Raj Kumar ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.S.A. No.10 OF 2011 March 11, 2011