Knox and Banerji, JJ.
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council. The subject-matter of the appeal is valued above ten thousand rupees, but, as the decree appealed from affirmed the decision of the Court immediately below, we have to see before granting the certificate that the appeal, if admitted, would involve some substantial question of law. The grounds set out in the application do undoubtedly involve questions of law, but in our opinion the questions raised are not substantial questions of law. The question briefly put is whether this Court was right in affirming a decision of the Court below which granted execution without the production of a succession certificate, upon its being shown to this Court that such succession certificate had been obtained by the decree-holder before the order appealed from had been passed, and upon the certificate being produced in this Court before the appeal was determined. The objection of non-production of the certificate, though raised in the Court below, was not pressed before that Court, and the reason to our mind is obvious: the judgment-debtor knew of the existence of the certificate and saw no advantage in sustaining an objection which would at once be removed and would only lead to unnecessary delay. In his appeal to this Court again the judgment-debtor, the present applicant, did not raise the objection, and no doubt for the same reason. Whatever irregularity there was in the Court below was not an irregularity affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the application for execution. It was cured by the production in the Court of the certificate which had already been obtained. No objection could have been taken if this Court in dealing with the appeal had set aside the order appealed from and directed the Court below to cause the production of the succession certificate and proceed to execution after the said production. Such a course would have been harassing, and needlessly harassing, both to the judgment-debtor and the judgment-creditor, and would have been a pure sacrifice to the observance of technicalities in proceedings. We hold that no substantial question of law is involved. We dismiss the application with costs.