The High Court of Bombay held that an interlocutory order directing parties to appear before a Court Commissioner does not decide the rights of parties and is not a 'judgment' under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, rendering an appeal against it not maintainable.
Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
app-216-12.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.216 OF 2012 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.47 OF 1994 IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.119 OF 1991
Smt. Laxmibai Purshottam Palan and others. Versus
Satish Purshottam Palan
... Appellants
... Respondent
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.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.
Friday, July 27, 2012
P .C.
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.
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.
CHIEF JUSTICE
N.M. JAMDAR , J .
2 of 2
SRK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an interlocutory order directing parties to appear before a Court Commissioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shah Babulal Khimji v. JayabenRelied on¶14
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Laxmibai Purshottam Palan and others
Satish Purshottam Palan
MOHIT S. SHAH
N.M. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
