SHAIK ABDUL NABHI SAHEB Vs. MARTI RAMALAKSHMAMMAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by leave from the decision of Rajamannar, J., pursuant to Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court.

(2.) THE relevant facts can shortly be stated. The plaintiff, appellant here, instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Guntur. At the trial, it was dismissed as being not maintainable on some preliminary objection, the merits not having been considered. That dismissal was set aside upon appeal by the plaintiff to the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur who, on the 31st January, 1947, directed the suit to be remanded for disposal by the learned District Munsiff. Shortly thereafter, the 7th defendant, respondent before us, preferred an application for review to the learned Subordinate Judge. The grounds of review manifest clearly and unequivocally that the application was for the purpose of setting aside the whole of the previous order and decree of the Subordinate Judge directing the suit to be tried. No other relief is found to be contained in the application. It was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge on the 31st March, 1947, when the previous order or decree remanding the suit for trial was not interfered with; but the learned Judge directed two very minor and, I would have thought, entirely unnecessary textual alterations to the wording of the former decree. In place of the words " is entitled to " he directed the word " can " to be substituted and the words " and in the light of the observations contained herein " to be deleted from paragraph 8 of his judgment.

(3.) AT the outset a preliminary point was taken on behalf of the 7th defendant -respondent that no appeal lies in the present instance. It was argued that the order of Rajamannar, J., granting a stay, is not a "judgment" within the contem -plation of that word in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Consequently no appeal lies. The relevant wording of the Letters Patent which was added by an amendment made in 1929 is the following: