HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.17 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The 2nd respondent was employed with the appellant as worker in the business. He is said to have mis-appropriated certain funds of the appellant. It is stated that when steps were initiated for recovery of the amount, the respondents 1 and 3, father and wife, respectively, of the 2nd respondent have executed a letter, dated 09-04-2002, Ex.A-2, promising to repay the amount. Alleging that contrary to the promise made by them, the respondents 1 and 3 have alienated an item of property in favour of the 4th respondent, a close relative of the 2nd respondent, the appellant filed I.P. No.5 of 2004 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short ‘the Act’). The trial Court dismissed the I.P. through order, dated 04-04-2007. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S. No.92 of 2007 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The appeal was dismissed on 30-12-2009. The same is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. 2. Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have proceeded in a wrong assumption as to the facts and law and dismissed the proceedings. He submits that there is no consistent version from the respondents as to the execution of Ex.A-2 and the same was not appreciated by the Courts below. 3. The proceedings under Section 9 of the Act can be initiated only when there does not exist any dispute as to the indebtedness of the debtor shown in the I.P. If there is any serious dispute, the Forum is elsewhere. It is not the case of the appellant that there existed any specific contract or liquidated sum, which remained unpaid. The respondents have flatly denied their obligation towards the appellant. When such is the case, proceedings under Section 9 of the Act are untenable. At any rate, hardly there existed any relationship between the appellant on the one hand and the respondents 1, 2 and 4 on the other. The Courts below have appreciated the matter from the correct perspective. There is no substantial question of law, arises for consideration. 4. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J April 11, 2011 KTL