UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. HAFIZ MOHAMMAD SAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision before us is whether an appeal by the University of Delhi, defendant, lies under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act (No. 26/66) of 1966 (here in after to be called the Act) against the order of learned single judge of this court holding that the suit for partition of plaintiff's interest in respect of two khasra numbers out of four, was maintainable; the plaintiff has not filed an appeal in respect of other two khasra numbers in respect of which the suit was heldto be not maintainable, in view of the evacuee having interest inthe property.

(2.) It was not disputed that if an appeal lay only against thoseorders specified in Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule I of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be called the Codethe present appeal would not be maintainable as the impugnedorder is not one of those mentioned in these two provisions.

(3.) By an Act of the Governor General of India in Council (ActNo. XXIII of 1865) the Chief Court of the Punjab was established and the Provinces of the Punjab and Delhi were subject to itsjurisdiction. This position continued, till the Letters Patentconstituing the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 21stMarch, 1919, was issued by which the High Court at Lahore wasestablished for the provinces of the Punjab and Delhi, called theHigh Court of Judicature at Lahore. The Punjab High Court after1947, continued to be governed by this Letters Patent and theUnion Territory of Delhi continued to be within the jurisdictionof the Punjab High Court. Clause 9 of the Letters Patent conferred extraordinary original civil jurisdiction on the High Court.Clause II provided that the High Court of judicature at Lahoreshall be a court of appeal from the civil courts of the provincesof the Punjab and Delhi. It is important to note that no ordinaryoriginal civil jurisdiction was conferred on the High Court underthe Letters Patent.