Judgement This was a petition for directions and declarations in regard to an Order in Council dated August 7, 1900, or, if necessary, for its amendment under the following circumstances. The order (of which there was a duplicate) was based on a judgment delivered in the above-mentioned appeals and cross-appeals, and reported in L. R. 27 Ind. Ap. 151. It discharged a decree of the High Court in so far as it had directed that the sum of Rs. 23,000 be substituted for Rs. 56,000 awarded in the decree of the District Court, and it ordered the restoration of the latter decree as to the payment of the said amount. The petition stated that the defendant had paid into court the balance due of the said Rs. 56,000, and that on March 11, 1901, the petitioners, who were plaintiffs in two suits, applied to the District Court for execution of the Order in Council, so far as it remained unexecuted, giving credit for the said balance. The defendant thereupon claimed to set off a sum of Rs. 19,500, which he had been ordered to refund in another suit, on the ground that the same had already been paid by him by way of set-off by consent against the decree for Rs. 23,000. The District Court refused the claim because the decree for Rs. 56,000 purported to be the balance due after deducting the Rs. 19,500, whereas the High Court decree in arriving at the substituted sum of Rs. 23,000 included therein the amount of Rs. 19,500, and afterwards directed that that amount be set off against a similar amount directed to be refunded to the defendant in another suit. In appeal from the order of the District Judge, 72 Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 64 ( 1903- 1904) Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna V. Raja Yarlagadda Durga 173 the High Court directed that the set-off be also allowed as against the Rs. 56,000 mentioned in the Order of Council, the effect of which was that it was twice deducted from the amount of the final adjudication first, in computing its amount; and, second, in its execution. The reason given was that they must give effect to the Order in Council as it stands, and not in effect vary it on equitable considerations. The order directed that Rs. The reason given was that they must give effect to the Order in Council as it stands, and not in effect vary it on equitable considerations. The order directed that Rs. 56,000 be paid ; if the circumstances had been brought to the attention of the Judicial Committee the order might have directed payment of Rs. 75,500, but either way the sum of Rs. 19,500 deducted by a consent order of set-off still subsisting to the final decree made must be allowed. To avoid limitation petitions of appeal from the order of the High Court had been filed. De Gruyther, for the defendant, as a preliminary objection to the hearing of the petition, contended that, as an appeal to the Crown had been filed, there was no jurisdiction to deal with the order made, which might have turned on other considerations, until the appeal was heard. Sir W. Rattigan, K.C., and Cowell, in support of the petition, contended that their Lordships might explain the intention of their judgment and of the order, leaving the Court below in review to deal with the case, having regard to the intention so expressed, and thus save the costs of an appeal. It was obvious that there was no intention that the defendant should deduct Rs. 19,500 twice over. De Gruyther, contra. LORD MACNAGHTEN expressed the following opinion of their Lordships —Their Lordships are of opinion that the orders of His Majesty in Council of August 7, 1900, were intended to uphold the decrees of the First Court, and to decide that the sum due to the petitioners at the date of His Majestys orders was the balance of Rs. 56,000, after deducting the sum of Rs. 19,500 in question between the parties. Their Lordships will make no order as to the costs of this petition, and direct the petition to stand over generally.