SITAL DIN Vs. ANNANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court. A preliminary point is taken that no appeal lay. The ground urged is that the order passed by the learned Single Judge did not amount to a decree, inasmuch as he sent back the case to the lower appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C. It is pointed out that the order passed was an order of remand, and under the Civil Procedure Code it did not amount to a "decree."

(2.) In support of this argument reliance is placed on the case of Sevak Jeranchod Bhogilal V/s. Dakore Temple Committee , decided by their Lordships of the Privy Council. That case arose in the following circumstances: There was a temple of a public character, and a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C, was filed in respect of the management of the temple. The case went up before their Lordships of the Privy Council, and their Lordships confirmed the scheme settled in India after some alterations. One of the provisions in the scheme was that the scheme might be altered, modified or added to by an application to His Majesty's High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

(3.) A temple committee was appointed, and it framed a body of rules according to the powers given to it. These rules came before the District Judge of Ahmedabad for his sanction, and he made certain alterations. Thereupon certain persons, who were dissatisfied with the alterations made by the District Judge, filed an appeal against the order. The High Court held some doubt as to whether an appeal lay; but nevertheless a learned Judge of the High Court wrote and delivered a judgment in which he expressed his views as to the rules which had been sanctioned by the District Judge.