Judgement Appeal (No. 113 of 1929) from a decree of the High Court (February 22, 1928) varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Patna (April 21, 1925) on appeal from a decree of the Munsif of Patna. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif by the respondents claiming to eject the appellant from certain agricultural land. The question for determination was whether under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, the appellant had a permanent right of occupation. The High Court (reversing the lower Courts) held that he had not, save as to a portion of the land. The respondents by their printed case in the appeal contended that the subject-matter of the suit was below Rs. 10,000, and that the appeal was consequently incompetent under s. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal originally came on for hearing in November, 1932, when the above objection was raised by counsel. The Judicial Committee, not having before it material for determining the validity of the objection, adjourned the matter in order that the parties might communicate with India. Law Rep. 60 Ind. App. 366 ( 1932- 1933) Anup Mahto V. Mita Dusadh 164 Upon the adjourned hearing on May 5 there was produced a report which the Munsif had made in consequence of a direction given by the High Court under Order xlv., r. 5. 1933. May 5. Hyam for the appellant. Abdul Majid for the respondents. May 5. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD BLANESBURGH. In this matter their Lordships are of opinion that the objection taken has no foundation. By the report of the Munsif on a reference to him under Order xlv., r. 5, the value of the suit before the Board exceeds Rs. 10,000. Their Lordships are not going behind that report. Accordingly the objection on the score of value taken to the competency of the appeal fails, and the appeal must now be set down for the purpose of being disposed of on the merits. But, although delay has ensued and costs have been needlessly expended by this unavailing preliminary objection of the respondents, their Lordships will not treat the case as one in which they ought to direct them to pay in any event the costs thrown away. The appellant is not free from some responsibility in the matter. But, although delay has ensued and costs have been needlessly expended by this unavailing preliminary objection of the respondents, their Lordships will not treat the case as one in which they ought to direct them to pay in any event the costs thrown away. The appellant is not free from some responsibility in the matter. They desire to say by way of warning in future cases that when a question of this kind has been raised in India, and when a report with reference to value has been made under the rule above referred to, it is desirable that full information with reference to these proceedings be included in the record so that no such unfortunate misapprehension as has arisen in this case will in any future appeal be possible. The costs of both sides of this preliminary question will be costs of the appeal. (The appeal was heard on the merits on July 21, 24, 25, but judgment was not delivered in time for inclusion in this volume.)