ASHA RAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRELIMINARY objection is raised on the maintainability of this appeal by the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that the order passed by the single Bench is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In support of their contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786, Asrumati Debi v. Kumar Rupendra Deb, Rajkot, AIR 1953 SC 198, Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini, 2003 (10) SCC 691 : (AIR 2003 SC 4244) and Satish Trading Company v. Divisional Manager, P. P. Khare, Indore Telephones, 1999 (1) Jab LJ 217. Reliance has also been made on the unreported judgments of this Court in the case of M/s. Shree Om Agroil Private Limited v. M. P. Electricity Board decided in L. P. A. 222/2000 on 7-5-2004 and in the matter of M/s. Gwalior Synthetics Private Limited v. M. P. Electricity Board decided in LPA 281/1996 on 11-5-1996. Counsel for appellant placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited v. Union of India reported in (2001) 2 SCC 588 : (AIR 2001 SC 883) and judgment in the case of Liverpool and London S. P. and I. Association Ltd. v. M. V. Sea Success 1 reported in 2004 (1) Supreme 365.

(2.) COUNSEL for respondents submitted that the orders passed by Single Bench is not a judgment in the meaning of Clause 10 as right of the parties have not been adjudicated by the Single Bench and they have submitted that this appeal is not maintainable.

(3.) COUNSEL for appellant submitted that dispute has been raised before the Single Bench and that dispute has not been decided by the Single Bench and petition has been dismissed on the ground that petitioner should approach the Civil Court as disputed questions of facts arose in the case. Counsel for appellant submitted that there were no disputed question of facts before the Single Bench which cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. He submitted that since there was no dispute, petition cannot be thrown out and the action of Court in refusing to decide the dispute is also a judgment and in support of his contention he has placed strong reliance in the judgment of Liverpool and London (supra) and Central Mine Planning and Design (supra ). Para 14 of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited (AIR 2001 SC 888) (supra) is as under :-" in the instant case, we are concerned with the last mentioned category. From the above discussion, it follows that to determine the question whether an interlocutory order passed by one Judge of a High Court falls within the meaning of "judgment" for purposes of Letters Patent the test is : Whether the order is a final determination affecting vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties concerned. This has to be ascertained on the facts of each case. "