Skip to content


Tetley Vs. Jai Shankar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All726
AppellantTetley
RespondentJai Shankar and anr.
Excerpt:
interlocutor order - appeal to her majesty in council--act vi of 1874--act x of 1877 (civil procedure code--letters patent), clause 31. - .....be inclined to exercise it, but we are of opinion that the provisions of that clause were by implication repealed by the code and act vi of 1874, which preceded the code. the petitioner must apply for special leave or wait until this court pronounces final judgment if the proceedings are brought before it. bach party to bear his own costs of this.....
Judgment:

Turner, Officiating C.J.

1. It is clear that, under the provisions of the Procedure Code, X of 1877, we have no power to give leave to appeal from the order of this Court directing a hearing on the merits, that order not being a decree but an interlocutory order; but it is argued that we have discretion to allow an appeal under the 31st clause of the Letters Patent. The case appears to be one in which, if we possessed the power, we should be inclined to exercise it, but we are of opinion that the provisions of that clause were by implication repealed by the Code and Act VI of 1874, which preceded the Code. The petitioner must apply for special leave or wait until this Court pronounces final judgment if the proceedings are brought before it. Bach party to bear his own costs of this application.


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