SURAJ SINGH Vs. PHUL KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have decided, after hearing arguments of counsel in this case, to refuse this application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

(2.) The order which it is sought to take in appeal is an order which was passed by this Bench in Civil Revision No. 125 of 1923. In other words, it was an order passed under the provisions of Section 115, Civil P.C. The matter came before this Court in connexion with an arbitration award. The award having been attacked in the trial Court was accepted by the learned Judge of the Court below and we decided by our order that there was no case for interference in revision. We therefore allowed the order of the District Judge to remain as it was.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised before us and it is argued in this connexion that having regard to the language of Section 109, Civil P. C, Clause (a), the applicants have no right to apply for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. This argument is based on the consideration that the order which was passed by this Bench, and which is the order complained of, was not an order passed "on appeal" by a High Court. We agree with the argument, and we do not think that an order which has been passed by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is an order passed "on appeal." We understand there is authority for the contrary view in a case reported as Harish Chandra V/s. Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad (1911) 13 CLJ 688. The view there taken followed the view which was adopted by the Madras Court in Chappan V/s. Moidin Kutti (1899) 22 Mad 68. This, latter was a case in which the matter under discussion was the right of appeal under the Letters Patent.