HAR PARSHAD WALI Vs. NARANJAN NATH MATTOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a letters patent appeal against the order of a single Judge of this Court holding that the defendants are not agriculturists for the purpose of the Agriculturists Relief Act.

(2.) THE plaintiffs brought a suit under O. 37, R. 1, C, P. C,, for the recovery of Rs. 3,132 on the basis of a pronote against Hari Prashad defendant No. 1 and Sham Lal defendant No. 2. The defendants pleaded that they were agriculturists and the suit ought to be tried under the Agriculturists Relief Act. An issue was framed by the learned Single Judge whether or not the defendants were agriculturists and the onus of proof was placed of the defendants. After examining the evidence the trial Judge decided the issue against the defendants. Against that decision the defendants have appealed under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the plaintiffs respondents that the order appealed against was not a judgment within the meaning of Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent. It is argued by the counsel for the respondents that the order is an interlocutory order not finally disposing of the suit or proceedings in the suit and, therefore, it was not a "judgment" within the meaning of cl. 12 of the Letters Patent.