LAWS(PVC)-1919-7-48

DESAI VENECHAND RAJPAL Vs. LAKHMICHAND MANEKCHAND

Decided On July 24, 1919
DESAI VENECHAND RAJPAL Appellant
V/S
LAKHMICHAND MANEKCHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Pratt on an application, made by the plaintiffs on motion that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit the defendant, his servants and agents, might be restrained by an order and injunction of this Honourable Court from prosecuting the suit filed by him against the plaintiffs in the Court of the Morvi State. The learned Judge held that the motion-failed and directed the plaintiffs to pay the costs.

(2.) A preliminary point has been taken that no appeal lies against that order. It is admitted that the appeal could only lie under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and that therefore no appeal lies, unless the order can be considered as a judgment. A "judgment" Clause 15, according to the decision in The Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. The Oriental Gas Company (1872) 8 Ben. L.R. 433, which has been followed in this Court, means a decision which affects the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability. The questions in this suit appear in the prayers of the plaint. It was prayed, first, that it might be declared that the partnership between the plaintiffs and the defendant was dissolved on or about the 26th clay of June 1917; that since the date of the said dissolution the plaintiffs were the sole owners of the assets of the said firm; that the defendant had no Interest in the profits of the said firm since the date of the dissolution; and then the plaintiffs further asked that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit the defendant, his servants and agents, should be restrained from prosecuting the suit he filed in the. Court of the Morvi State.

(3.) Now the defendant in this suit filed a suit in the Morvi Court on the 4th January 1919, praying that the Court should take an account of the partnership business and realise its assets, and that on such account being taken the Court would be pleased to pass a decree in the plaintiff s favour for such amount as appears due to him from the defendants or for whatever relief he might be entitled.