JUGAL KISHORE PALIWAL Vs. S SAT JIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for both the parties are present and we have heard them at length. The High court was clearly wrong in refusing to go into the merits of the case on the ground that appeal was not maintainable in view of the full bench decision in University of Delhi v. Hofiz Mohd. Said. This decision is no longer good law in view of our decision in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania where we have laid down various parameters and conditions under which an appeal can lie from a single Judge to the division bench. Paragraph 115 at page 1816 of the above-referred decision may be extracted thus:

(2.) In the instant case as the amendment of the written statement was sought at the time of framing issues and it vitally affects the right of the parties and seeks to work some injustice to the plaintiff, it merits serious consideration by the appellate court on the question whether or not amendment should be allowed. It would certainly not be a purely interlocutory order against which no appeal before the LPA bench would be maintainable. More than this we would not like to say at this stage as we intend to send the case back to the division bench for admitting the appeal and disposing it of according to law on merits. The order of the division bench dated 1/04/1982 is set aside and the division bench is directed to admit the appeal and decide it on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. We would request the High court to decide the appeal as early as possible as the suit is still pending. The appeal is accordingly allowed.