JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal against an order declaring certain persons, Shambhu Nath and his son Badri Nath, to be insolvents. The application to the Court below was made by a creditor named Hannu on the 15th of January 1912 and the 11th of May was fixed. On that date, Parmanand, one of the creditors, asked for time as he had received the summons only on 10th of May. Some of the creditors had not been served. ON the 11th of May, certain other creditors also asked for adjournment in order that the account books of the insolvents might be brought into Court. On the 22nd of June, the present appellants asked for more time to enable the account books to be brought in Court. From the 11th of May to the 22nd of June, they had made no attempt whatsoever to bring those books in Court, although they had full knowledge as to their whereabouts. The lower Court refused to adjourn the case. The insolvent, Shambhu Nath, was examined. He stated that he was unable to pay his debts and had actually compounded with some of his creditors. The lower Court declared him an insolvent. Against this order, Chaini Ram and Hardeo Das come here on appeal. It is urged that the lower Court ought to have given more time on their application of the 22nd of Jane. We think the lower Court was justified in refusing to grant further time. The next ground is that the Court below was not justified in making the order of adjudication without proof of the facts stated in Sections 14 and 6 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The application filed by the insolvent, Shambhu Nath, and the statement made by him, which was not challenged by cross-examination, are ample proof of the act of insolvency and the right of the creditor to file the application. We see no reason for interfering in the matter. We dismiss the appeal with costs to the contesting creditor, Hannu.