The court must inquire into the present value of the properties and decide whether the debtors proved inability to pay their debts. The application for insolvency must comply with the rules framed under Section 79 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.

JUDGMENT

1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act.

2. An application was made by one of the creditors for declaring the debtors (who are four out of five members of a firm, the fifth being a minor) insolvent. Some of the other creditors opposed the application on various grounds. The learned, District Judge dismissed the application on several grounds. After the application had teen disposed of, four of the debtors made an application for being declared insolvents. This also was rejected by the Court below on the ground, among others, that they had not proved their inability to pay their debts. These two appeals are against these two orders. We propose to deal first of all with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 378 of 1922 which deals with applications of the four debtors to be declared insolvents.

3. It appears that one of the debtors, Rasik Lal, was examined and he stated that the debts amounted to over Rs. 1,06,600 and that they were unable to pay their debts; and there is a report of the Receiver which states that the value of the Rice Mill would be about Rs. 30,000 only.

4. The learned District Judge, however, in arriving at the conclusion that the debtors were not unable to pay the debts, relied upon a statement in an affidavit sworn to by one of the debtors in 1920 in some other suit to the effect that the Mill was worth Rs. 95 000.

5. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the Court below has not enquired into the present value of the Mill and other properties; that the Receiver was not authorized to go into the question of the value of the Mill; and that that the learned Judge has not considered the fact the one-fifth share of the properties belong to the minor brother of the debtors who is not an applicant for insolvancy.

6. The affidavit stated the value of the Mill as it was two years ago. What the Court below ought to have considered was the present value of the Mill and the other properties which are available for meeting the liabilities of the debtors and no inquiry has been directed to that point.

7. We are of opinion that the Court below should inquire into the present value of the properties and decide whether, having regard to the proviso (a) to Section 24 of the Act, the debtors have proved inability to pay their debts.

8. A question, however, has been raised before us on behalf of the respondents, viz., that a joint application could not be made by four of the debtors for being adjudicated insolvents.

9. It is unnecessary to refer to the cases decided under the former Insolvency Act (III of 1907). Section 79 of the present Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920) provides that the High Court may make rules for carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.

10. Sub-section (2) lays down that such rules may provide (among others) for the procedure to be followed where the debtor is a firm.

11. The High Court has framed rules u/s 79 of the Act.

12. Rule 19 provides, "where any notice, declaration, petition or other document requiring attestation is signed by a firm of creditors or debtors in the firm name, the partner signing for the firm shall also add his signature, e.g., Brown & Co., by James Green, a partner in the said firm."

13. Rule 22 says : "Where a firm of debtors file an insolvency petition, the same shall contain the names in full of the individual partners, and if such petition is signed in the firm name, the petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the partner who signs the petition showing that all the partners concur in the filing of the same."

14. Rule 24 lays down, "In cases of partnership the debtors shall submit a schedule of their partnership affairs, and each debtor shall submit a schedule of his separate, affairs."

15. It appears, therefore, that where the debtor is a firm, the application must be in the name of the firm and the manner in which such an application is to be signed, is laid down in the rules quoted above.

16. In the present case the applic