PUBLIC TRUSTEE Vs. RAJESHWAR TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for decision is whether this appeal is maintainable to this Division Bench as being from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Labore or of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or of the High Court of Delhi.

(2.) This Court was established by the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 thereinaftetr called the Act).

(3.) Section 5 (1) of the Act contained the "original, appellate and other jurisdiction " exercised by the High Court of Punjab in the Union Territory of Delhi prior to the coming into force of the Act. Section 5(2) of the Act, on the other hand, conferred on this Court ordinary origmal Civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeded at first Rs. 25,000.00 and since 1st October, 1969 Rs. 50,000.00. Before the commencement of the Act, this jurisdiction vested in the subordinate courts at Delhi. For, the High Court of Punjab did not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction as a court of first instance to entertain civil suits of any value whatever. This' Court has thus two distinct kinds of original jurisdiction, namely:- (1) The pre-existing jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court, and (2) the ordinary original civil jurisdicetion transferred from the subordinate courts from the commencement of the Act. Consequently, the provisions governing appeals against judgments of a learned Single Judge of this Court in these two different jurisdictions are also different. When a judgment is delivered by a learned Single Judge exercising the jurisdiction inherited from the Punjab High Court under section 5 (1) of the Act, then the appeal against it lies under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. On the other hand, when a learned Single Judge delivers a judgment in exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction obtained from the subordinate courts under section 5 (2) of the Act then the appeal lies under section 10 (1) of the Act. Due to this basic difference, the meanings of the word "judgment' in clause 10 of the Letters Patent and section 10 (1) of the Act are diffirent. The former includes a preliminary, interlocutory of final judgment or orders while the latter includes only a decree or an order appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure. This has been so held by a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court in University of Delhi etc. v. Hafiz Mohd Said etc 1 FAO (03) 6/1968 decided on' 2nd March, 1972). It is in the light of the above legal position that we have to see whether the present appeal is maintainable before us.