Smt. Laxmibai Purushottam Palan and 4 Ors. Vs Satish Purshottam Palan

Mr.Hiralal Thacker, Senior Advocate with Ms.Kashmira Bharucha and Ms.Vishakha Vaswani i/by M/s. V.V.Juris for the appellants. Mr.Atul G. Damle for the respondent.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶11

Friday, July 27, 2012

¶12

P .C.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dated 27 February 2012 of the learned trial Judge of this Court directing that the parties shall appear before the Court Commissioner who shall record the oral evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff and thereafter the defendants shall be entitled to file their affidavit of examination-in-chief as well as the affidavit of documents, if required. Further directions were given by the learned trial Judge for trial of the suit.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants-original defendants, we are of the view that this appeal is not maintainable. In Shah

1 of 2

SRK

app-216-12.sxw

Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786, the Supreme Court has held that intermediary or interlocutory orders which do not decide the rights of the parties cannot be considered as Judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent and, therefore, the appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent would not be maintainable. Such orders are admittedly interlocutory and cannot be termed as judgments' because it will always be open to the aggrieved party to make a grievance regarding the order so passed in the appeal against the final judgment passed by the trial Judge.

¶19

Appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

CHIEF JUSTICE

N.M. JAMDAR , J .

2 of 2

SRK

Smt. Laxmibai Purushottam Palan and 4 Ors. v. Satish Purshottam Palan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmibai Purushottam Palan and 4 Ors. v. Satish Purshottam Palan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sangeeta Sonavane Vs State of Maharathra and Ors.

Chainroop Dugar, Vs Smt. Jatan Gulab Daga and 4 Ors.

R.B. Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Nile Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Afroz Hasan Fatta

Rushang Samir Shah and 4 Ors. Vs Narendra v. Mewawalla and 3 Ors.

Ashco Niulab Industries Ltd. Vs Agilent Technologies ( Sales) Singapore Pte. Ltd.

Ashco Niulab Industries Ltd. - L28920MH1986PLC039437 Vs Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.