KHEVINABEN R PATEL Vs. JAGDISHCHANDRA J DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is by the legal representative of the original respondent in Civil Revision Application No. 1014 of 1988. The Civil Revision Application is one preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the District Court at Baroda, confirming in Regular Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1982, the judgment and decree of the First Court in Rent Suit No. 1078 of 1986 instituted by the original respondent in the Civil Revision Application for eviction of the applicant in the Civil Revision Application, The respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal is the applicant in the Civil Revision Application. The original respondent in the Civil Revision Application passed away on 5-2-1991. According to Mr. Mohit S. Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant, the Civil Revision Application stood abated on 7-5-1991 and the time for setting aside the abatement also expired on 6-7-1991. The appellant, on 19-9-1992, preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1575 of 1992, praying that a writ may be sent to the District Court, Baroda and the Small Causes Court, Baroda, stating that the Civil Revision Application No. 1014 of 1988 has abated in May, 1991 and the interim stay granted therein has lapsed. However, the respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal, who is the applicant in the Civil Revision Application, on 9-10-1992, preferred Civil Application No. 5144 of 1992, to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased original respondent in the Civil Revision Application and also preferred Civil Application No. 5143 of 1992 to condone the delay thereof. The learned single Judge, by a common order, has disposed of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1575 of 1992 and also Civil Application Nos. 5133 of 1992 and 5144 of 1992. The learned single Judge has allowed Civil Application Nos. 5143 of 1992 and 5144 of 1992 and has rejected Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1575 of 1992 on the ground that the Civil Revision Application has not abated. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) At the time of the admission of this Letters Patent Appeal itself, a doubt was felt by the Bench as to its maintainability. However, for the purpose of deciding the question of maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal comprehensively, after hearing the other side, the Bench consisting of two of us (S. Nainar Sundaram, C. J. and J. D. Dave, J.) admitted the Letters Patent Appeal and further directed the matter to be placed before a Larger Bench. That is how the matter has come before us, as a Pull Bench.

(3.) Two aspects require consideration on the question of maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal. One is as to whether the order of the learned single Judge would amount to a 'judgment', within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Bombay, which applies to this Court. Only if the decision of the learned single Judge is a judgment, within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal, there could be an appeal to the Bench, is a proposition not disputed before us. The second aspect, which must engage our attention on the question of maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal, is as to whether the jurisdiction exercised by the learned single Judge and in which he made the order, subject-matter of this Letters Patent Appeal, is one which permits the agitation of the matter to a Bench of this Court by way of a Letters Patent Appeal.