JUDGMENT Krishnan, J. The appellant debtor had filed an Insolvency Petition giving a list of creditors for a total debt of about Ra. 9,400 out of whom the main creditor entered appearance. Even during the preliminary enquiry u/s 24, Provincial Insolvency Act, the Court found that the appellant was not entitled to present the petition and accordingly dismissed it. Hence the appeal. On the facts, the Court took note of the debtor-petitioner's statement on oath in another case, about a year before presenting the petition, that- He had in his shop property worth Rs. 16,000 to Rs, 20,000. He had properties in Mandeaur worth Rs. 15,000 or Rs. 20,000. If, as the context indicates, he is speaking of two kinds of properties, one in the shop and one elsewhere in Mandsaur, he had at that time i. e. in February 1954, a total of thirty to forty thousand rupees worth as property; even if both relate to the same, at all events, he stated that he had property not less than He. 15 000 worth. In the application filed in July 1955, the assertion was that his debts totaled to about Rs. 9,400 and his properties worth about Re. 600 movable and Rs. 200 immovable. There is certainly nothing impossible in a person, who is rich today, becoming a beggar tomorrow. The earlier statement on oath could certainly be reconciled with his petition if the petitioner had stated or at least indicated how in the interval things had gone badly for him and the properties he had, in February 1954, had been lost, destroyed or used up before July 1955 But there was absolutely no such indication. The result was that the Court held that prima facie, he had not satisfied it in regard to his inability to pay the debt. Accordingly, it dismissed the application. In appeal, it is urged that at the initial hearing u/s 24, Provincial Insolvency Act, the Court had only to see the prima facie case not to enter into any elaborate enquiry as to how the properties were concealed or secretly disposed of and the like. All this would come later on before the discharge, if any. In appeal, it is urged that at the initial hearing u/s 24, Provincial Insolvency Act, the Court had only to see the prima facie case not to enter into any elaborate enquiry as to how the properties were concealed or secretly disposed of and the like. All this would come later on before the discharge, if any. Case-law has also been cited, but there being no controversy in regard to the proposition that at the stage of adjudication, the Court has only to apply its mind to what appears prima facie from the petition and the affidavit, it is unnecessary to discuss the case-law. In fact, the lower Court itself has mentioned this aspect of the matter. As laid down in section 10, Provincial Insolvency Act, the debtor has to satisfy the Court in regard to two things. Firstly, that his debts exceeded the prescribed minimum and secondly, that he is unable to pay them. Here there was prima facie evidence at least of one debt that it was about Rs. 3,000 (in round figures), whatever may be the position in regard to the others; but there was altogether no prima facie evidence on his inability to pay. Quite on the contrary, the prima facie evidence was that about a year before the petition, he had, according to his own words, property worth Rs. 15,000 and nothing was shown to have happened to it in the meanwhile. Thus in terms of section 10, Provincial Insolvency Act, this debtor was prima facie not entitled to present the petition. Some affidavits have been sworn in this Court but they do not in the least touch upon the factual position apart from the petition and the statement referred to. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Costa and pleader's fee, according to rules, payable by the appellant to the respondent. Final Result : Dismissed