PAWAN KUMAR Vs. NARINDER KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal stems from the suit filed on the original side of this Court by the respondents 1 to 3 against one Shadilal and others, seeking partition of the property which forms subject-matter of the suit. During pendency of the suit, Shadilal defendant died (deceased-defendant hereinafter), leaving behind a widow namely Mrs. Sarla Jain, besides, two sons, namely, M/S Anand Jain and Ashok Jain. Being legal heirs of the deceased defendant, they sought their impleadment in the array of defendants through the CMP bearing No.288/90. The CMP was allowed. All the three applicants came to be impleaded as defendants by order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.04.1994.This order is called in question through this appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. For facility of reference, clause 12 is extracted below:

(2.) A plain reading of clause 12 makes it manifestly clear that an appeal is competent from the decision of a Single bench provided such decision falls within the ambit of judgment. Therefore, a moot question arises as to whether an order of impleadment amounts to a judgment. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it does. He has placed reliance on Shah Babulal Khimji v Jayaben Kania and another (AIR 1981 SC 1786). In its para 120, illustrations of orders are given which may be treated as judgments but these illustrations do not include an order of impleadment of the legal heirs. Thus it needs to be determined whether an order of impleadment can be said to be a judgment. In this behalf it is appropriate to notice the observations of the apex court in paras 106 and 119 of the judgment supra, which are reproduced hereunder:

(3.) Analysing the aforementioned guidelines, it emerges that: