THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5283 OF 2008 DT.09.03.2010 Between: T.S.Jayaprakash ……..Petitioner Vs. Mukunda Industrial Finance Limited and another …………..Respondents. O R D E R: The revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur. The said suit is filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of Rs.73,19,428/- allegedly due from the revision petitioner/ first defendant. A written statement has been filed by the revision petitioner/first defendant contesting the suit claim. In that suit the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.6 of 2006 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., to reject the plaint on the ground that I.P.No.8 of 2002 filed by him is pending on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, to which the plaintiff was also made a party. It is contended that in view of the pendency of said I.P.No.8 of 2002, unless leave of the court is obtained as required under Section 24 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit. The said application was opposed by the first respondent/plaintiff and after hearing both the parties, the court below by an order dated 27.06.2008 dismissed I.A.No.6 of 2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is to be noticed that Provincial Insolvency Act which provides for the procedure at hearing has no application at all and an order of adjudication shall relate back to, and take effect from the date of the presentation of the petition on which it is made. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, which reads as hereunder: “Effect of an order of adjudication: On the making of an order of adjudication, the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Court in a receiver as hereinafter provided and shall become divisible among the creditors, and thereafter, except as provided by this Act, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable under this Act shall during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of the debt, or commence any suit or other legal proceeding except with the leave of the Court and on such terms as the Court may impose.” On a mere reading of the above provision, it is clear that leave of the court is required only when an order of adjudication is made by the court. Admittedly, it is a fit case that no such adjudication is made and even according to the petitioner, I.P.No.8 of 2002 is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge. In the Circumstances, as rightly held by the court below, there is no bar in law as to the maintainability of the suit and therefore, Order 7 Rule 11 (D) C.P.C., does not come into picture. In the circumstances, the revision which is devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G.ROHINI J., Dt.09.03.2010 tjs