PROMADA NATH ROY BAHADUR Vs. BASIRUDDIN QUAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the plaintiff for a certificate that this is a it case for appeal to His Majesty in Council. The matter came before my learned brother Mr. Justice Richardson and myself on the 3 December, 1923, and it was then decided that: the appeal did involve a substantial question of law, and this Court remanded the case under Order 45, Rule 5 of the Civil P. C., for enquiry and report as to the value and the form of the order was as follows:-" For the purpose of an enquiry and report as to the value of the occupancy holding the subject-matter of the suit on the basis that the rent is liable to be enhanced at the instance of the plaintiff," and the lower Court was "requested to direct its enquiry as to the value of the occupancy holding both at the time of the institution of the suit and at the date of the judgment of the High Court."

(2.) The learned Officiating Subordinate Judge has submitted his report by which he finds that the value of the occupancy holding exceeds Rs. 10,000.

(3.) The learned Vakil for the respondent has taken two objections to the report. The first was that the learned Subordinate Judge did not direct a local enquiry. In my judgment there is no substance in that point. The question whether there should be a local enquiry was one for the discretion of the learned Subordinate Judge, and it seems to me that the reasons which the learned Subordinate Judge gave for not directing a local enquiry were substantial and sufficient.