JUDGMENT

Page, C J - These are two consolidated applications foe leave to appeal to Hia Majesty in Council. The decree or order from which it is sought to appeal reversed 4tn order of the District Court of Mandalay passed in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. From orders passed by the High Court in insolvency a further appeal lies to His Majesty in Council if the conditions prescribed in that behalf under the Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) are fulfilled: Maung Ba Tha Thaw v. Ma Pin 1934 P.C. 81.

2. The determination of the present application involves the consideration of the meaning and effect of Section 110 of the Code which runs as follows:

Section 110.--In each of the cases mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b), Section 109, the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit in the Court of first instance must be ten thousand rupees or upwards, and the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council must be the same sum or upwards, or the decree or final order must involve, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value, and where the decree or final order appealed from affirms the decision of the Court immediately below the Court passing such decree or final order, the appeal must involve some substantial question of law.

3. Now, the order of the District Court was passed on an application by the respondent presented by way of demurrer, in which it was inter alia alleged that a petition filed by the applicants for the adjudication of the respondent and three Other persons did not disclose an available act of insolvency on which the petition could be based. The learned District Judge held that:

For the reasons which I have given I am not prepared to hold on the allegations as made in the petition of the petitioning creditors that there is no available act of insolvency disclosed against the fourth respondent-debtor.... This case will now proceed against the fourth respondent-debtor alone.

4. The order passed by the District Court plainly was not a final decree or order, but on appeal the High Court held that no available act of insolvency by the alleged debtors was disclosed in the petition for adjudication, and dismissed the petition with costs. Now, the effect of this order of the High Court as made was that no fresh petition for the adjudication of the respondent could be presented within three months after the occurrence of the acts of insolvency alleged in the petition that had been dismissed, and the appellate order therefore finally disposed of the rights of the parties so far as the present petition was concerned, and after the appellate order had been passed the proceeding in the course of which the petition was presented was no longer a "live" proceeding in which the rights of the parties remained to be determined. For these reasons, in my opinion, the order of the High Court from which it is sought to appeal to His Majesty in Council was a final order passed on appeal within Clause 37 of the Letters Patent and Sections 109 and 110, Civil P.C: Bozson v. Altrincham Urban District Council (1903) 1 K.B. 547, Ramchand Manjimal v. Goverdhan Das Vishandas 1920 P.C. 86, U. Nyo v. Ma Pwa Thin 1932 Rang. 137 and Abdul Rahman v. Cassim & Sons 1933 P.C. 58.

5. Now, the present application is presented solely, and I take it advisedly, under Section 110 of the Code, and not Section 109(c) of the Code: Moti Chand v. Ganga Prasad Singh (1902) 24 All. 174. I say: advisedly beoause after a perusal of the petition it becomes manifest that this is not a case which the Court ought to certify as "a lit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council," the applicants seeking to resuscitate as faulty and ill drawn a petition as ever I saw. The applicants based their claim to a certificate granting leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council on para. 2, Section 110 of the Code, contending that the order from which they seek to appeal must involve directly or in