Francis W. Maclean, C.J.
1. Notwithstanding, the fact that, having regard to Section 7 of the Court-fees Act, VII of 1870, Sub-section 4, the value of this suit was fixed at Rs. 1,500, I think it is open to the petitioner, having regard to the nature of the relief sought, to show what was the real value of the subject-matter in the case. It is perhaps a little difficult, where a perpetual injunction is asked for against a person carrying on a business such as the manufacture of indigo to restrain him from erecting buildings which are essential to that business, to appreciate exactly what the real value of the subject-matter may be. As I have said before, incompetent to the petitioner to show what the real value was.
2. I agree with the criticism addressed to us on behalf of the, respondent, that many o the items mentioned in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition cannot be included in the value of the subject-matter of the dispute. Bat Rs. 7,000 is said to have been expended on the building structures, and a portion at any rate of what is said to have been expended on implements for the manufacture of indigo might, I think, be fairly included. Paragraph 9 says this: 'The real value of the relief claimed in the suit, judged from the practical result thereof to the defendants, is much over Rs, 10,000.' If the plaintiffs are entitled to a perpetual injunction practically restraining the defendants from carrying on the indigo business, it must be obvious that the defendants may sustain a loss far greater than the mere cost of the buildings.
3. Under these circumstances the petitioner is entitled to a certificate.
4. I Concur.
5. I also concur.