ORDER:- This is a petition for grant of certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of my learned predecessor dated 4-6-1951 in second appeal 6 of 1950. During the pendency of the application the trial Court was directed to estimate the value of the subject-matter of the suit. This has been done. The Senior Subordinate Judge of Bilaspur has reported that the market value of the land in suit is Rs.11,675/-. This valuation has not been disputed by the parties. Having regard, therefore, to the provisions of Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, an appeal to the Supreme Court is not competent under those provisions. 2. It is true that the suit giving rise to the petition was filed before the present Constitution came into force. As was pointed out, however, by me in - Pohlo v. Mt. Basanti, AIR 1954 Bilaspur 1 (A), appeals to the Supreme Court would be regulated by the provisions of Article 133 of the Constitution, irrespective of when the suit was originally instituted. I am supported in this view by a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in - Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad, AIR 1954 SC 355 (B), where their Lordships observed that: "Plaintiff preferred a second appeal to the High Court of Jaipur. The appeal was allowed. The defendant applied for a review of this judgment. Meanwhile the Jaipur High Court had become defunct and the review was heard by the Rajasthan High Court as successor to the Jaipur High Court under the High Courts Ordinance and was partially allowed on the 5th of April 1950 and the decree was accordingly amended. It was against this judgment and decree passed after the coming into force of the Constitution of India that the present appeal had been preferred to the Supreme Court by leave of the Rajasthan High Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution: Held that the only operative decree in the suit which finally and conclusively determined the rights of the parties was the decree passed on the 5th of April 1950 by the Rajasthan High Court and that having been passed after the coming into force of the Constitution of India the provisions of Article 133 were attracted to it and it was appealable to Supreme Court provided the requirements of that Article were fulfilled. The Code of Civil Procedure of the Jaipur State could not determine the jurisdiction of Supreme Court and had no relevancy to the maintainability of the appeal." Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that I might certify that the case is a fit one for appeal under Art.133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The grounds given in the petition are that (a) there has been miscarriage of justice due to the failure to rely upon mutation no. 28 dated 24-12-1998; (b) my predecessor has erred in not relying on the plaintiffs admission to the Ijlas-i-alia on 11th Poh 1977 and (c) Thutha purchased the land as Manager of the joint Hindu family and, therefore, it should have been held as joint Hindu family property. In this connection, I may refer to a decision of my learned predecessor reported in - Guddu Mal v. Amin Chand, AIR 1954 Him P 24 (C), where he held that a certificate would not be granted, unless a substantial question of law of great public or private importance was involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that the rejection of the plaintiffs previous statement involves a substantial question of law of public importance. The law on this point, however, is well established and on a consideration of all the facts of the case, I am not satisfied that a case is made out for grant of a certificate under Art.133(1)(c). Accordingly, I reject the petition with costs assessed at Rs.25/-, payable to the contesting respondent. Petition dismissed.