In this case the only question their Lordships have now to determine is whether the decree appealed from, of 21st October 1926, which in terms is not expressed to be by consent , was in fact made by consent. In obedience to an order of His Majesty in Council of 12th February 1931, [AIR 1931 PC 107], made in accordance with advice humbly tendered by their Lordships to His Majesty, a remit was sent to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, being the Court which pronounced the decree in question requesting that Court to inform their Lordships whether or not the decree was in fact made by consent.
Their Lordships have now been informed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in a report made to the Board, that its judgment of 21st October 1926, and the decree appealed from following thereon, were professedly made with the consent of the parties: that is to say, the decree was consensual and did not, except so far as authorized by consent, embody any judicial finding by the Court itself. Accordingly the decree is one from which no appeal to His Majesty in Council can be entertained. Only in substantive proceedings appropriate to that particular remedy can it, if at all, be set aside. As the Court of the Judicial Commissioner has declared that it proceeded entirely upon the consent of parties in making the decree appealed from their Lordships have not thought it necessary to consider the other statements in its report as to the sufficiency or otherwise of that consent. Upon that declaration alone, they must deal with the appeal on the footing that it is entirely incompetent, and they must humbly advise His Majesty that it be dismissed, and with costs,