JUDGMENT Daniels, J.
1. This is an appeal from an order declaring the appellant, Durga Ram an insolvent on the application of the respondent, Har Kishan Das, to whom he is indebted. It is difficult to know exactly on what grounds the learned Judge has granted the petition. The acts of insolvency alleged in the creditor's petition' were, first, that the insolvent was removing his property in order to avoid paying; his creditors, and, secondly, that he did' not sit at his shop and was about to go to Calcutta. The learned Judge finds neither of these allegations to be proved. As regards the absence, he says that all that is proved is that the appellant was absent from his village for about two or three hours on one occasion when the munim of the shop went to collect the debt. This-is not sufficient to constitute an act of insolvency within the meaning of Clause (d)(ii) of Section 6. The grounds on which the learned Judge seems to have proceeded are that the defendant, who is a cloth dealer, has been purchasing cloth from the applicant, selling it retail and using the sale proceeds to pay up creditors other than the applicant. Ha further finds that the defendant has not been keeping up his accounts for about a month past and has ceased to carry on his business with vigour during these days. Neither of these, two acts constitutes an act of insolvency within the Provincial Insolvency Act. Nor does the fact that he is unable to pay his debts in itself suffice. We allow the appeal and set aside the order of adjudication. The appellant will get his costs.