CHITTARANJAN MONDAL Vs. SANKAR PROSAD SAHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is against an order of Amaresh Roy, J. made on the 23rd November. 1971. The plaintiff instituted an Ejectment Suit in the City Civil Court. By its judgment delivered on July 12, 1971, the City Civil Court passed a decree for ejectment. The tenant-defendant preferred an appeal to this Court. It was Appeal No. 2365 of 1971. In this appeal the tenant-defendant made an application for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from executing the ejectment decree. This application for injunction came up for hearing before Amaresh Roy. J. and His Lordship dismissed the application on the 23rd November 1971. Against this order of dismissal the tenant-defendant has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal and this Rule has been obtained in connection with that appeal.

(2.) Mr. Roy Choudhury appearing for the plaintiff in the Ejectment Suit has raised a preliminary objection. He says that the order of Amaresh Roy, J. dismissing the application for injunction is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The order according to Mr. Roy Choudhury does not affect the merits of the controversy between the parties nor does it determine any right or liability of any of the parties. In other words, the order does not decide either wholly or partly any of the matters in dispute in the suit itself, Mr. Roy Choudhury contends that the word 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent means a judgment or decree which decides the case one way or the other either in its entirety or in part It does not, says Mr. Roy-choudhury, mean a decision or order of an interlocutory character, which merely decides some isolated point not affecting the merits of the case. Learned Counsel has referred us to a large number of decisions in support of his contention as aforesaid. We do not intend to deal with all the cases cited. For our purpose in this matter it is necessary to mention the decision of Sir Richard Couch. C. J., in the Justices of Peace v. The Oriental Gas Co., (1872) 8 Bens LR 433. Couch. C. J. has stated :

(3.) This view of Couch, C. J. has been considered from time to time by numerous decisions by this Court as well as other High Courts and the definition of 'judgment' which the learned Chief Justice gave was variedly interpreted. In a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa, (1912) ILR 35 Mad 1 (FB), White. C. J. has considered the view of Couch. C. J. and has stated: "The test seems to me to be not what is the form of adjudication but what is its effect in the suit or proceeding in which it is made."