Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Gokul Prasad, J.
1. The valuation of this suit is below Rs. 6,000 and so is the valuation of the appeal to His Majesty in Council, but this Court has set aside the decree of the lower court. There was another suit on hundis in which the same question was raised between these very parties, namely, Privy Council Appeal No. 9 of 1920. It is true that in the lower court this suit was decided by a separate judgment, but in the appeal in this Court the evidence in the two suits was considered as a whole at the request of the parties, who are the same, and this Court came to a decision on the whole of the evidence in favour of the respondent. In the connected suit we have already given leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It is contended that no permission lo appeal should be given because there is no question of law involved and the value is below Rs. 10,000 and that Order XLV, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable. We do not agree with the last contention.
2. An appeal is after all a proceeding in continuation of a suit. The value of the two suits in the court of first instance as also of the proposed appeal to the Privy Council is above Rs. 10,000 and this Court has reversed the decree of the court of first instance. The points raised in the two of he are identical, and we think that this is a proper case to which the procedure sanctioned by Order XLV, Rule 4, should be applied and the parties given an opportunity of having one decision from the highest court of appeal. We, therefore certify that this case fulfils the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Order XLV, Rule 4, as regards the nature and value of the subject matter of the suit.