JAGAT RAM Vs. GANGA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appln. for leave to appeal to the S.C. of India from the decision in Civ. Misc. No. 62 of 1949 whereby this Ct. refused leave to the pltf. -appet. to appeal in forma pauperis.

(2.) MR . D.K. Mahajan for the Respondents urges a preliminary objection that an order rejecting an appln. to appeal in forma pauperis does not come within Article 133, Const. Ind.. The argument raised is that such an order is not a judgment, decree or final order of the H.C. within Article 133. Clearly, the appeal sought to be preferred to the S.C. of India is not an appeal from any decree of this Ct.

(3.) NOW , the word "judgment" is not defined in the Const. Ind. or in the General Clauses Act, 1897. In Wharton's Law Lexicon the word "judgment" is defined as a judicial determination putting an end to the action by an award or redress to one party, or discharge of the other, as the case may be. Indeed, there is abundant authority for the view that "judgment" means a decision of the Ct. which affects the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability and does not include a mere formal order or an order regulating the procedure in a suit or an appeal. The order from which it is sought to appeal to the S.C. of India does in no way determine the rights of Jagat Earn as an applt with regard to the subject -matter of appeal. The order is merely an interlocutory order prescribing the procedure under which the pltf.'s appeal should be conducted. It was open to the applt. to pay the court fee if he was able and willing to pay the court - fee and to proceed with the appeal in the ordinary course. Clearly, the order sought to be appealed against is not a judgment within Article 133, Const. Ind.