Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.

1. In this case the suit was commenced before the District Munsif and it appears that there was an undervaluation of the suit. If it had been properly valued, the case would not have gone to the District Munsif but would have gone to the Subordinate Judge, in the first instance, and thence on appeal to the High Court instead of to the District Court and on second appeal to the High Court as is the case in decisions from District Munsifs. This objection to jurisdiction by reason of undervaluation was taken before the District Munsif who held that he had jurisdiction and heard the case. There was an appeal from him to the District Court, the lower appellate Court in this case. The District Judge held also that the suit was not undervalued but he also held that, if the suit were undervalued, still its valuation had not prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit on its merits. That decision on appeal comes to this Court by way of Second Appeal and, there having been a difference of opinion, it is referred to a Full Bench.

2. The question turns on the proper interpretation of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act of 1887 which provides that ob