SITA RAM Vs. SHAHNGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing a first appeal from order filed by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant filed a suit in the Court of Munsif for partition of certain property. That suit was decreed and the defendant filed an appeal against that decree. Notice was issued on that appeal, and the plaintiff (appellant) entered appearance through a counsel on the date fixed for filing his vakalatnama. The Court then fixed the 2nd March, 1951, for the hearing of the appeal, but as neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared before the Court at the date of hearing the proceedings against him were ex parte. Judgment was reserved and it was delivered on the 14th March, 1951, allowing the appeal in pArticle Before the Judgment was delivered the appellant had made an application on the 5th March, 1951, that the order directing the proceedings against him to be ex parte be set aside, and on this application an order was passed that it should be put up along with the appeal on the date fixed for delivery of judgment. The appellant says that on the 14th March, 1951, the learned Munsif first delivered judgment in the appeal and thereafter made an order dismissing the appellant's application for a rehearing. The appellant then filed an appeal against this order on the 14th March, 1951, dismissing his application. This appeal came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court, who dismissed it on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. It is against this order of the learned Judge that this appeal hag been filed.

(3.) The first question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the learned single Judge was appealable in the absence of any declaration by him that the case was a fit one for appeal. The relevant rule on the point is Rule 6, Chapter VIII of the Rules of this Court; It appears to have been taken from Clause (10) of the Letters Patent of this Court and is worded as follows :