Facts :- A suit was brought in the Bombay High Court for damages for failure to deliver 504 bales of dhoties. The suit was decreed only in respect of 24 bales. As regards damages, a witness was called on behalf of the plaintiff and after examining that witness the Court awarded damages for Rs. 2,875. There were an appeal by the plaintiff and a cross-objection by the defendant from the decree. Both were dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed to the Privy Coun cil. The Privy Council allowed the appeal (vide A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 54). An Order in Council passed on 29-1-1923 set aside the decrees made in India and remitted the case for the High Court to discuss the damages payable to the plaintiff in excess of the Rs. 2,875 awarded by the High Court. When the matter was referred to a single Judge of the High Court, the de fendants offered to give evidence to show that the plaintiff had really not suffered any damage. The offer was rejected and a further sum based upon the evidence given at the original trial was awarded as damages. Then there was an appeal to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. The appeal was adjourned for six months with a view to enable the parties to take steps to obtain a direction from their Lordships of the Privy Council as to whether evidence was to be allowable as regards further damages. The present petition was filed by the defendant to obtain a declaration that the order in Council made on 29-1-1923 did not prevent him from adducing additional evidence on the question of further dam ages decreed to the plaintiff. Lord Sumner.-In accordance with the authority of the case of Ex parte Yarlayadda Durga (1903) 27 Mad 153 : 31 IA 64 : 8 Sar 621 (PC) which has been cited to their Lordships, their Lordships are willing under the particular circum stances of this case to assist the High Court in Bombay by an expression of their opinion upon the question which appears to have been mooted before them. They desire, however, to add that it is no part of the functions of their Lordships' Board, generally speaking to interpret Orders in Council which have been already made unless they are brought before them in the ordinary way upon appeal. They desire, however, to add that it is no part of the functions of their Lordships' Board, generally speaking to interpret Orders in Council which have been already made unless they are brought before them in the ordinary way upon appeal. The present Board, of course, is only able to state the intention of the opinion deliver ed by them, and of the Order in Council that His Majesty was then pleased to pass thereupon by reading the language of the opinion and of the Order, and those of their Lordships who were parties to the judgment would hesitate to claim any specific recollection of the facts of the case. It does not appear to their Lordships that it was contemplated at the time, upon a question which was essentially one merely of calculating the amount of damages, that either party to a commer cial dispute in Bombay would have pro posed to call evidence long afterwards to contradict evidence which had been allow ed to pass at the trial, when the facts were comparatively recent. This conside ration and an admission of human frailty must be the Board's excuse for having failed to state more explicitly in the opinion that was arrived at what course they anticipated would be pursued in the Court of the trial judge. They may perhaps be allowed to say that they fail to see what substantial doubt could have arisen upon the question. The course which the trial judge had taken, the mode in which he as sessed the damages and his decision - whatever the grounds may be that he gave for it - not to admit any fresh evidence of the value of the goods, appear to their Lordships to have been in entire accord ance with what the Board contemplated would be done upon the question which it was necessary to remit to the Indian Court because their Lordships were not the proper tribunal to make calculation and the parties were unable to come to an agreement. In the result therefore the answer to the petition is unfavourable to the peti tioners and they will have to pay the costs of the petition