To attract the application of Art. 133(1)(b) it is essential that there must be - omitting from consideration other conditions not material-a judgment involving directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less than Rs. 20,000.

Judgment

SHAH, J. : The petitioner applies for special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution, against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, dated December 16, 1963 in Civil First Appeal No. 54 of 1956 on two grounds:

1. that the judgment of the High Court involves a claim or question respecting property of not less than Rs. 20,000 in value, and the High Court erred in refusing a certificate under Art. 133(1)(b) of the Constitution; and

2. that the case is otherwise fit for appeal to the SC.

2A The material facts bearing on the plea raised are these. The petitioner commenced on July 2, 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer, an action against the respondents claiming a decree for Rs.10,665 and for rendition of accounts in respect of the balance of sale proceeds of 104 bales of cotton purchased by him were sold by the respondents as his agents on May 14, 1948 for Rs. 27,267-13-6 and without settling the account the respondents delivered towards that amount a demand draft for Rs. 11,000 which was encashed and four cheques of the aggregate value of Rs. 13,000 which because of lack of arrangement with the respondents bankers were not encashed, and the petitioner on that account was entitled to receive from the respondents Rs. 10,665 being the amount due on the foot of dishonoured cheques and interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum between July 2, 1947 to July 1, 1951, less Rs. 4,000 subsequently received by him. The petitioner also claimed a decree for the balance of the price, after giving credit for commission, dalali and godown charges incurred by the respondents as his agents and as he was not in a position to know the amounts due to or disbursed by the respondents, he claimed decree for rendition of account. The subject-matter of the suit was, therefore, a claim for Rs. 10,665 due to the petitioner on a cause of action arising on cheques dishonoured, and a claim of the balance of the price due as may be ascertained on taking accounts.

3. The Trial Court passed a decree directing that account be taken for ascertaining the amount due in respect of the entire transaction of 104 bales and for taking accounts appointed a Commissioner. The High Court of Rajasthan reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit holding that the transaction in respect of which the claim was made by the petitioner were those of an unregistered firm constituted by the petitioner and another person named Duli Chand and; the suit was barred because the firm was not registered. An application filed by the petitioner for certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution was rejected by the High Court.

4. The judgment of the High Court proceeds entirely upon appreciation of evidence and on the findings recorded the petitioner s suit must stand dismissed. But counsel for the petitioner urged that the judgment of the High Court directly involves a claim or question respecting property of value not less than Rs. 20,000 and he was entitled as a matter of right to a certificate from the High Court under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution. This argument is sought to be presented in two ways. It is urged in the first instance that the judgment of the High Court involves a question relating to the right of the petitioner respecting 104 bales of cotton belonging to him and sold by the respondents for an amount exceeding Rs. 27,000. Secondly, it is urged that pursuant to the order of the Trial Court a Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner reported that Rs. 12,089-14-6 with interest at the rate of 6 pet cent per annum from May 14, 1948 were due to the petitioner and as the amount due to the petitioner on that footing was not less than Rs. 20,000 at the date of the decree of the High Court, the judgment of the High Court involved a claim respecting property of that amount or value. In our view the contention raised by the petitioner under either head has no substance.

5. It is conceded, and