HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5181 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners, who are the creditors of the 1st respondent herein, have filed the present revision against the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in I.A.No.26 of 2008 in I.P.No.21 of 2006 dated 22.8.2008, whereby the Court below allowed the application to implead the petitioners herein as respondents 39 and 40. The 1st respondent herein initiated proceedings seeking that he be declared an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short ‘the Act’). In the original list of creditors submitted by him, the petitioners’ names do not find mention. It is the petitioners’ case that, two years thereafter, the 1st respondent had filed the present application to bring them on record as respondents 39 and 40, and that such an application should not be entertained. In the order under revision the Court below held that Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C was applicable to insolvency proceedings and, since the 1st respondent had failed to add the petitioners herein as respondents by mistake, the application should be allowed. Before this Court Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would question the said order on two grounds. Firstly, that the provisions of C.P.C, more particularly, Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. do not apply to proceedings under the Act, and secondly that the application filed to implead the petitioners, as respondents 39 and 40, was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches as it was belated having been filed 2 years after the original list of creditors was filed. Learned counsel would rely on the judgment of this Court in Paturi China Veerayya v. Talluri Gopalakrishna Rao[1]. Sri P. Veera Reddy, Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, would submit that the provisions of the C.P.C. are applicable to proceedings under the Act including Order 1 Rule 10 thereof and, in the absence of any time limit being prescribed for including creditors in the list of creditors, the Court below had rightly allowed the application as it could not be said to be either barred by limitation or liable to be rejected on the ground of laches. Learned counsel would rely on Guggalla Venkatanarapu Reddi v. Sadhanapu Pedda Reddamma[2]. I n Paturi China Veerayya1, a creditor had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. that he be impleaded as a party in the insolvency proceedings. This Court noted that, under Section 16 of the Act where the petitioning – creditor does not proceed with due diligence on his petition, the Court may substitute any other creditor, to whom the debtor may be indebted, in the place of a petitioning – creditor and, since there was a specific provision in this regard under Section 16 of the Act, recourse could not be had to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Unlike in Paturi China Veerayya1, in the present case the application under Order 1 Rule 10 is filed not by a creditor but by the debtor who has initiated the proceedings that he be declared an insolvent. Unlike in Paturi China Veerayya1, Section 16 of the Act has no application to the facts of the present case. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that, subject to the provisions of the Act, the Court, in regard to proceedings under the Act, shall have the same powers, and shall follow the same procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction. The provisions of C.P.C, or those akin thereto, would, subject to the provisions of the Act, apply to proceedings under the Act. In the absence of any provision in this regard or to the contrary precluding an application being filed to bring on record the creditors as respondents 39 and 40, Section 5(1) of the Act would require the Court to have recourse to the provisions of C.P.C. including Order 1 Rule 10 thereof. No provision in the Act akin to Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C has been brought to the notice of this Court. The judgment in Paturi China Veerayya1 is, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioners. In Guggalla Venkatanarapu Reddi2 this Court held that, in the absence of any provision in the Act permitting an application being filed to set aside an order of adjudication, the provisions of C.P.C. would apply in view of Section 5 of the Act. A noted hereinabove, there is no provision akin to Order 1 Rule 10 in the Act, and as such the said provision would be available to the 1st respondent to have the petitioners herein impleaded as respondents to the proceedings. On the question of laches, it is not in dispute that the Act does not prescribe any time limit for an application to be filed to implead the creditors, left out from the list of creditors originally filed, as respondents to the insolvency proceedings. Sri P. Veera Reddy, Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, would draw attention of this Court to Section 33(3) of the Act whereunder any creditor of the insolvent may, at any time before the discharge of the insolvent, tender proof of his debt and apply to the Court for an order directing his name to be entered in the schedule as a creditor in respect of any debts provable under this Act, and not entered in the schedule. It is no doubt true that the present application is not filed by the creditors but by the debtor himself. The fact, however, remains that there is no time limit specified in the Act for bringing on record the creditors, left out from the original list of creditors, as respondents to the insolvency proceedings. The delay of two years in filing the application cannot be said to be so inordinate as to justify the application being dismissed on the ground of laches. Both the grounds urged before this Court, to have the order under revision set aside, do not merit acceptance. The C.R.P. fails and is, accordingly dismissed. Since the insolvency proceedings relate to the year 2006, I have no reason to doubt that the court below shall dispose of the said petition as expeditiously as possible. __________ 8-7-2010 asp [1] AIR 1957 AP 603 [2] 1958(2) An.W.R. 316