1. The Judge has found that the insolvent is unable to pay his debts. It is true that some of his debts are exaggerated and one at least looks like a bogus debt. There are other allegations against him in paras. 7 to 9 of the appellant’s counter-petition. These will have to be enquired into carefully hereafter. At present we see no ground to interfere.
2. The appellant’s vakil relies on Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, and contends that the present petition does not lie. The case he cites, Venugopalachariar v. Chimanlal Sowcar A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 942 relates to an order of annulment and cannot apply to a second petition for being declared insolvent. We agree with Ram Pershad Bhagat v. Mahadeb Lal  2 Pat. L. T. 335 where it was held that such a petition lies, Section 10 (2) implies that, apart from annulment, a second petition lies.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.