JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - When this appeal came up for hearing, Mr. Baleshwari Prasad, one of the learned Counsel for the respondent, raised the objection that this High Court was not today properly constituted, and therefore the appeal could not, be heard by us. The basis, of his argument is that Young, J., has gone away and has been appointed the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, and therefore this High Court is short by one barrister Judge. His further argument is that u/s 101, Government of India Act, at least one-third of the Judges of the High Court should be barristers and, as that rule has not been complied with, the High Court is not properly constituted.

2. Of the two arguments the first is-a question of fact. We have not got any evidence before us that Young, J., is not yet a member of this Court. He went away on leave. Till he takes over charge in the Lahore High Court, he continues to be a member of this Court. We are asked to take judicial notice of the fact that Young, J., has taken over charge of the Lahore High Court. But no judicial notice can be taken of a fact like this. The second argument is, in our opinion not sound. S.. 101, Clause (4) no doubt provides tha