JUDGMENT Bomford J.M. 1. The facts in this case are very similar to those in the case Ram Gharib Tewari v. Sh. Ali Hammad (1937) 1937AWR 354 with which I have also dealt today. 2. The judgment-debtor made a protest against the valuation statement of his property, but was absent when the case was put up. The Court gave him a postponement but the judgment-debtor took no steps to ascertain the orders of the Court. The valuation was therefore approved in his absence. 3. I have no hesitation in saying that his original objection was a typical delaying objection. He challenged the valuation statement on three grounds vis., that (I) said mutalaba were not included in the rental, (2) that no addition had been made for sayar, (3) that the rent of the ex-proprietary tenancy had not been calculated properly. There was no such tenancy but it is fairly clear that he meant that the sir had not been correctly valued. Under heads (I) and (2) he gave no figures at all and but for the fact that in the other appeals from this division I have clear evidence that these valuation statements are not checked as they should be, I would have rejected the appeal. 4. As it is I find that khudkasht has been valued at Rs. 3.3.0, and sir at Rs. 3.I. Io, while both should have been valued at the same rate and the rental rate for tenants work out at Rs. 3. There is no explanation of these figures and nothing to show how the valuation of sir and khudkasht was arrived at. 5. I therefore remand the case to the Assistant Collector for investigation into the valuation statement in the presence of the parties and report within two months. Orders passed on the question of valuation will naturally affect the order passed subsequently, but any orders in revision will stand over pending the report from the Assistant Collector. Assistant Collector will also report if there has been any application under the Encumbered Estates Act accepted by the Collector and if so on what date.