RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Vs. MAHALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of our learned brother Satyanarayana Raju, J. dismissing the application filed by the appellant for stay of trial of the suit O. S. No. 367 of 1953 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Eluru pending disposal of Appeal No. 838 of 1953 on the file of this Court. Appeal No. 838 of 1953 arises out of O. S. No. 57 of 1950 filed by the appellant in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Eluru for setting aside various alienations made by his alleged adoptive mother. The Subordinate Judge held that the adoption was invalid, and on that ground dismissed the suit. The suit sought to be stayed was filed by the wife of one of the alienees from the adoptive mother for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for ejecting the appellant and his lessee. In the appeal, the application was filed for staying the trial of that suit mainly on the ground that if the adoption was upheld in the appeal, it would govern the decision in the suit O. S. No. 367 of 1953. The learned Judge dismissed that application on the ground that the ends of justice did not require that the trial should be stayed pending the appeal. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against that order.

(2.) Mr. Rama Rao, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent took the preliminary objection that no appeal lies against the order of the learned Judge dismissing the application to stay me trial of another suit as the said order is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent, A Full Bench of the Madras High Court held in Central Brokers v. Ramanarayana Poddar & Co, that an order made under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision of law for the stay of trial of a suit is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of that term in Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) This Full Bench decision, having been rendered prior to the constitution of the Andhra High Court, is binding on us. Sri Suryanarayana, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the same Full Bench decided on the same day that an appeal lies against an order of a single Judge of the High Court refusing to stay the execution of a decree of a subordinate court on the ground that the said order is a 'judgment within the meaning of Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent, and the two Full Bench judgments are inconsistent with each other and one of them alone can be right. We have been taken through the other Full Bench decision reported in Rangaswami v. Eswara murthi by the learned Counsel. The learned Judges held that an order refusing to stay the execution of a decree of a Subordinate Court pending an appeal is a 'judgment,' for that has been so held by the Madras High Court for a long period of time, and there was no justification for taking a different view, whereas the learned Judges in the case of stay of a trial of a suit held that as the order does not decide the rights of parties, it is not a 'judgment.' Assuming for a moment that the judgment in Rangaswami v. Esivaramurihi' is liable to be questioned on the ground of inconsistency with the earlier judgment made by the same Full Bench, we do not see how that helpsthe appellant if the earlier judgment is based upon a sound principle. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the Full Bench in Central Brokers v. Ramanarayana Poddar & Co. and hold that no appeal lies against an order of a single Judge of this Court dismissing an aplication or allowing an application for stay of a trial of a suit either under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision of law.