RAJMATA VIJAYARAJE SCINCIA Vs. MAHARAJA MADHAVRAO SCINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING entertained grave doubt about maintainability of the three Letters Patent Appeals listed before us for admission and interim relief, we decided to hear counsel. Indeed, respondents having been noticed on the question of admission and having entered appearance, it was possible to hear their counsel who pressed vigorously the preliminary objection of maintainability of the appeals. We propose to dispose of, by this common order, all the three appeals - Letters Patent appeals Nos. 5,6 and 7 of 1987 - as a common question arises in these appeals and we have taken the view that the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals must prevail.

(2.) A learned Single Judge of this Court passed orders on 11-2-1987, separately, in three Misc. Civil Appeals wherein orders of learned District Judge passed in Civil Suits were challenged. Those orders were passed by learned District Judge on applications of plaintiffs made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, seeking appropriate directions against the defendants restraining them from doing certain acts pending disposal of the suits. Because the learned District Judge made certain directions against them, the defendants appealed to this Court successfully. Plaintiffs/respondents, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, have preferred these appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) ALTHOUGH much argument was advanced to us on the connotations and implications of the word "judgment", occurring in clause 10 aforesaid, we have taken a different view of the matter. We would appropriately deal with counsel's contention and analyse the language of clause 10 of Letters Patent, but we would first extract relevant portions of Sections 4,104, 105 and 106, Civil Procedure Code :