Skip to content


The Government of the Province Vs. Limdi Darbar. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal from Order No. 40 of 1940
Judge
Reported inAIR1944Bom24; (1943)45BOMLR961
AppellantThe Government of the Province
RespondentLimdi Darbar.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 142-order of court-order in writing.;the courts in the mofussil are under an obligation to draw up formally all orders inclusive of interlocutory orders.;if a party desires to appeal from an order which has not been drawn up, his proper course is to ask the judge to draw up the order, and it is the duty of the judge to comply with the request. the judge should consider the exact form of the order which he intends to make, and sign such order. - - but as the order has apparently never been drawn up, we do not know what the injunction is which is complained of, and we are not in a position to say whether or not the order was a right one. if such a practice exists, the sooner it is abandoned the better;.....is an appeal against an order made by the first class subordinate judge of ahmedabad granting some form of injunction. but as the order has apparently never been drawn up, we do not know what the injunction is which is complained of, and we are not in a position to say whether or not the order was a right one. some form of injunction may have been necessary, but the extent of it would require consideration.2. we are told that in the mofussil there is a general practice not to draw up interlocutory orders. if such a practice exists, the sooner it is abandoned the better; it is inconsistent with section 142 of the civil procedure code, 1908, which requires orders to be in writing. it is not enough to produce, as is done in this case, directions given by the judge as to the order which he.....
Judgment:

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.

1. This is an appeal against an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad granting some form of injunction. But as the order has apparently never been drawn up, we do not know what the injunction is which is complained of, and we are not in a position to say whether or not the order was a right one. Some form of injunction may have been necessary, but the extent of it would require consideration.

2. We are told that in the mofussil there is a general practice not to draw up interlocutory orders. If such a practice exists, the sooner it is abandoned the better; it is inconsistent with Section 142 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which requires orders to be in writing. It is not enough to produce, as is done in this case, directions given by the Judge as to the order which he intends to make. The Judge should consider the exact form of order which he intends to make, and sign such order. If a party desires to appeal from an order which has not been drawn up, his proper course is to ask the Judge to draw up the order, and it is the duty of the Judge to comply with such request. I have myself on several occasions refused to hear an appeal from an order which did not exist.

3. There being no order in this case, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Rajadhyaksha, J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //