1. A preliminary objection is raised that no appeal lies in this case. In C. M. P. Nos. 1612, 1613 and 1616 of 1929, Ramesam and Jackson, JJ., ordered that the respond ent in this appeal might draw some amounts from the District Court on giving security to the satisfaction of the District Court. After an elaborate enquiry the District Judge found the secur ity offered sufficient for a certain amount. This appeal is to the effect that the District Judge ought not to have been satis fied that the security was worth so much. No decision has been brought to our notice that an appeal lies in such a matter. On the contrary the principle of Hoare & Co. v. MorsheadL.R. (1903) 2 K.B. 359. is against it. Without discussing other reasons why the finding of the District Judge that the security offered is worth a certain amount does not come within Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the question was left to him by the order that the security must be to his satisfaction, we uphold the pre liminary objection. In our opinion it makes no difference in this connection that the words used by the learned Judges were 'to the .satisfaction of the District Court' instead of 'to the satisfaction of the District Judge.'
2. This appeal is dismissed with costs.