ORDER :- Debtor/petitioner seeks to revise the judgement dismissing his appeal against an order rejecting his petition under S.10 of the Insolvency Act to adjudge him insolvent. 2. Liabilities mentioned in the petition as outstanding due to the eight counter-petitioners was Rs. 1,30,596.54 and the assets are stated to be only his wearing apparel. Main objections were that the petitioner has not disclosed all his assets and that liabilities shown are not correct. There was the general contention that he is in a position to discharge his debts. Sixth counter petitioner denied the alleged liability of Rs. 38,000/- in his favour. It is also the contention that he has got a running business in the name of his wife with the retirement benefits obtained from a partnership and with these funds he also acquired properties in the name of his father. 3. Petitioner was examined as PW 1 and the two counter-petitioners were examined as C.PWs. 1 and 2. 4. As already stated the contention was that the petitioner got huge retirement benefits from a partnership with which he acquired immovable properties in the name of his father and started another business which is still running in the name of his wife. From the evidence the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the business is that of the petitioner who failed to disclose his assets. For that reason alone the petition was dismissed. For the same reason the appeal was also dismissed. 5. What could be taken for granted on the basis of the decisions of the courts below is that the petitioner has not accounted for the retirement benefits of about rupees eighty thousand obtained somewhere in 1979 and there is the possibility of some business run in the name of the petitioner's wife being that of the petitioner. Even accepting those conclusions as possible or probable there is no finding that the petitioner is able to pay his debts and there is no sufficient material also for such a conclusion. 6. Under S.10(1) of the Insolvency Act a debtor shall not be entitled to file an insolvency petition, unless he is unable to pay his debts. Section 24(1)(a) prescribing the procedure at the time of hearing says that the court shall require proof that the debtor is entitled to present the petition. 6. Under S.10(1) of the Insolvency Act a debtor shall not be entitled to file an insolvency petition, unless he is unable to pay his debts. Section 24(1)(a) prescribing the procedure at the time of hearing says that the court shall require proof that the debtor is entitled to present the petition. Proviso to that Sub-Section makes it char that where the debtor is the petitioner, he shall for the purpose of proving his inability, which is the only question to be proved at the stage of adjudging insolvent, be required to furnish only such proof as to satisfy the court that there are prima facie grounds for believing the same and the court, if and when so satisfied, shall not be bound to hear any further evidence thereon. 7. The position of law is now well established and is clear from S.24 that the enquiry envisaged under that Section in relation to the entitlement of the debtor to file the petition so far as this case is concerned is only his inability to pay his debt as stated in S.10. For that purpose the court can under S.24, at the stage of accepting the petition and adjudging him insolvent, require from him only such proof necessary to satisfy that there are prima facie grounds for believing his inability alleged by him. The enquiry contemplated therein is only of a summary nature and there is a positive prohibition against any other kind of enquiry also. At that stage the court is concerned only with the prima facie position of the debtor as to whether it is satisfied that he has complied with the conditions specified in the Act entitling him to present a petition. If that is satisfied he is as a matter of right entitled to an order of adjudication which does not depend upon the discretion of the court, but is a statutory right. At that stage under S.24(2) the creditors have a right to question the debtor only as regards his conduct, dealings and property. They have no right at that stage to produce substantive evidence as regards the concealment of the property by the debtor. 8. In a petition by the debtor for being adjudged insolvent the court has under the proviso to S.24(1)(a) only to be satisfied prima facie on the basis of a summary enquiry that the petitioner is unable to pay his debts. 8. In a petition by the debtor for being adjudged insolvent the court has under the proviso to S.24(1)(a) only to be satisfied prima facie on the basis of a summary enquiry that the petitioner is unable to pay his debts. Once such a satisfaction is had the court is not bound to hear any further evidence and enter into an investigation an the opulence or ability of the petitioner to pay his debts. An enquiry at the instance of the creditor about the ownership of certain properties or other assets in order to come to the conclusion that the petition is not a bona fide one is not warranted at that stage. The legal interdict created by the language of the proviso to S.24(1)(a) is a bar to hear any further evidence when there are prima facie grounds to believe that the debtor is unable to pay his debts. 9. After adjudication as insolvent the debtor has to apply for discharge under S.42 and the court has to adjudicate upon the same after hearing objections. S.44 provides that the adjudication as insolvent could be annulled on failure. At the stage of adjudication it is not the duty of the court to find out or the right of the creditors to prove that the debtor has committed acts of dishonesty in respect of his property or that the documents executed by him are sham and inoperative against the creditors. Those are matters to be considered at a later stage when proceedings are taken under Ss. 54 and 55 or when the debtor applies for discharge. Under S.56 annulments of transfers etc. under S.54 or 55 could be had at the instance of the receiver or with the leave of the court by any creditor who proved his debt and satisfied the court that the receiver has been requested and he refused. These are sufficient safeguards in the interest of the creditors against mala fide actions of the debtor to defeat their claims and they are intended to be operative only at later stages after adjudication. The fact that the debtor has suppressed some of his assets or shown some bogus debts are not matters to be taken, into account at the stage of adjudication and they are only to be considered at the stage of application for discharge. The fact that the debtor has suppressed some of his assets or shown some bogus debts are not matters to be taken, into account at the stage of adjudication and they are only to be considered at the stage of application for discharge. The essential conditions to be satisfied at the time of adjudication are only those provided in S.10(1). In proving these facts under the proviso to S.24(1)(a) the burden of proof cannot be equated with that in an ordinary civil litigation. An investigation whether ultimately the debtor will be able or unable to pay his debts is beyond the scope of an enquiry under the proviso to S.24(1)(a). When a person who claims himself to be a debtor wants to stigmatise himself as an insolvent stating that he is unable to pay his debts it cannot be lightly brushed aside by courts on a prior considerations, instead there should be strong grounds. I am fortified in these aspects by the pronouncements in Thomas v. Mathai 1977 Ker LT 307, Karnagam v. Jayaseelam, AIR 1977 Mad 250, K. Krishnan v. S.Ayyathurai, AIR 1979 Mad 82, P. Dharma Rao v. Vatluru Co-op. Bank, AIR 1978 Andh Pra 197 and the various decisions referred to therein. 10. Whether the courts below exceeded the limits of their jurisdiction and acted illegally or with material irregularity is a matter that has to be gone into in the light of the above principles. The necessary averments constituting the ingredients of S.10(1) are there in the petition. Petitioner gave evidence also in support of it. So much was sufficient for a prima facie satisfaction of the court that he was unable to pay his debts. The courts below did not find that he acquired any property in the name of his father. Even if there was such evidence that also would have been an extraneous consideration at that stage. What the courts found on his admission was that in the year 1979 or so he came by about eighty thousand rupees as retirement benefits which was not accounted. That question will not arise at that stage and further the petition was filed only in 1981. What the courts found on his admission was that in the year 1979 or so he came by about eighty thousand rupees as retirement benefits which was not accounted. That question will not arise at that stage and further the petition was filed only in 1981. On the basis that he got about rupees eighty thousand in 1979 or so and not accounted for the same the courts below further came to the conclusion that certain items of business run in the name of the petitioner's wife may actually belong to the petitioner. Such a conclusion was also not warranted at that stage. Another aspect that influenced the courts below was the denial by the sixth counter petitioner that Rs. 38,000/- mentioned in the petition as due to him is bogus. That also was not a matter which could have been considered then. Even giving margin to these aspects and accepting the position that the petitioner came by the amount in 1979 and not accounted for the same, there is nothing to show that he was able to pay his debts which covered more than a lakh of rupees. Evidently the courts below acted in excess of jurisdiction with illegality and material irregularity. The petitioner was entitled to get himself adjudged insolvent. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the orders of the courts below are set aside without any order as to costs. The matter is sent back to the Sub Judge for a formal order of adjudication and for further steps. Petition allowed.