Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.
1. The applicant in this case applies for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council upon the ground that the value of the subject-matter in suit and of the proposed appeal is more than Rs. 10,000. In the court of first instance the claim was for Rs. 9,307-8-0 which included interest upon the mortgage up to the date of the filing of the plaint. The plaint then contained a prayer that interest pendente lite might also be awarded and future interest to the date of payment. The learned Subordinate Judge gave a decree for Rs. 9,307-8-0, and then made a calculation of the amount of interest which was due from the date of the.institution of the suit to the expiry' of the period of six months provided for in Order XXXIV, Rules 2 and 4. The result of that calculation was that he added Rs. 693-0-4 to the already mentioned sum of Rs. 9 307-8-0. The addition of these two sums exceeds Rs. 10,000.
2. Dr. Sulaiman has argued before us that the value of the. subject-matter in suit means the amount for which the plaintiff is contending. On a fair reading of the plaint, the plaintiff in this case was contending for Rs. 9,307-8-0. Equally he was asking that interest at the agreed rate should continue from the date of the plaint down to the date of the decree and equally he was asking that in the event of his getting a decree, interest should be calculated on the period of six months subsequent to the decree, within which time the defendant would have to pay the decretal amount. It is true he was able to put a liquidated amount of Rs. 9,307-8-0 in the plaint because that was a mere matter of the addition of interest to the principal. If the case had been fixed for a definite date, some three, four or six months ahead, he would equally have been able, if he had chosen, to fix the amount of pendente lite interest, and there would have been no difficulty to his adding an ascertained sum for the six months' interest after the passing of the decree, and, in that way, he could have formulated a claim which would have exceeded Rs. 10,000.
3. We are of opinion that in a case of this character, where all that is sought to be added to the definite ascertainable amount at the date of the filing of the plaint is interest pendente lite and the amount provided for under Order XXXIV, Rules 2 and 4, if those three amounts when added together exceed Rs. 10,000, the case is one within the section. In those circumstances, being satisfied that the case fulfils the conditions provided for by Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we grant leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.