This is an application, to review an order made by us under Or. XLV of the Code of Civil Procedure. By that order we rejected an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and we did so upon this ground. The learned Vakil for the applicant, one of the most experienced and eminent Vakils of this Court, immediately told us that though the value of the subject-matter on appeal to His Majesty, in Council was upwards of Rs. 10,000, still the value of the subject-matter of the suit was not Rs. 10,000 and consequently he could not support the application. The result was, it was rejected.
It is mow sought to obtain a review of this order under sec. 114 of the Code and Or. XLVII. It is objected on the part of the Respondent that no such application can be made and for the purposes of supporting that contention our attention has been drawn to a number of, decisions in which it has been held that no appeal lies under the Letters Patent from the orders of a single Judge, rejecting an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. Mr. Justice Wilson in a case of Lutt Ali Khan v. Asgur Reza(1) bases this conclusion on the view that the order was not a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent. If that be the reason why an appeal does not lie from an order of a single Judge it affords no answer to an application for review.
Sec. 114 of the Code provides, that a party who is aggrieved by an order from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed by the Code, may apply for a review of the judgment to the Court which made the order, and the Court may order thereon as it thinks fit of rejection comes within this and the application for review within the terms of sec. 114, how it can be said the order was not an order of a Civil Court; it was under Or. XLV of the Code Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the Civil Judicature.
Moreover, I would point out of this view, that when an application for review is rejected by a Court, a High Court, then under Rule 1, an appeal lies from I therefore can see in the nothing to support the view order of the High Court under Or. XLV is not subject to review.
The next question is applicant has made out a case for review.
It is now contended that the value of the subject-matter of the suit in fact was Rs. 10,000 or upwards, and that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. But when the facts come to be investigated, it is conceded that even if interest be calculated not only up to the decree, but even up to the end of the six months allowed for redemption the sum of Rs. 10,000 is not reached. In this connection I would refer to the case in Gooroo Persad v. Juggut Chunder(2), where it was stated that “their Lordships must not, of course, be understood to intimate that the Sudder Courts are to give leave to appeal in cases in which the specified amount of Rs. 10,000 can only be reached by the addition of interest subsequent to the decree. Such cases must, in their Lordships' opinion, rest in their discretion:” that is, in the discretion of the Judicial Committee. There were therefore grounds for the conclusion at which the learned Vakil arrived as to the insufficiency of the value of the subject-matter of the suit and it is not made out that there is an error apparent on the face of the record of any sufficient reason for granting the review. If leave to appeal is to be obtained, it must, in the circumstances, be obtained from their Lordships of the Privy Council and not from us.
The application must, therefore, be dismissed with costs, three gold mohurs.
Application dismissed.