Skip to content


Jugal Kishore Paliwal Vs. S. Sat Jit Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3894 of 1982
Judge
Reported in(1984)1SCC358
AppellantJugal Kishore Paliwal
RespondentS. Sat Jit Singh and anr.
DispositionAppeal Allowed
Cases ReferredShah Babulal Khimju v. Jayaben D. Kania
Excerpt:
.....bench, being not a purely interlocutory order but one vitally affecting rights of the parties and causing injustice to the plaintiff — civil procedure code, 1908, section 104 and order 43, rule 1 -- the high court was clearly wrong in refusing to go into the merits of the case on the ground that appeal was not maintainable in view of the full bench decision in university of delhi v. hafiz mohd. the order of the division bench dated april 1, 1982 is set aside and the division bench is directed to admit the appeal and decide it on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. the appeal is accordingly allowed. - said manu de 0251 1972. this decision is no longer good in view of the decision in shah babulal khimju v......go into the merits of the case on the ground that appeal was not maintainable in view of the full bench decision in university of delhi v. hafiz mohd. said1. this decision is no longer good law in view of our decision in the case of shah babulal khimji v. jayaben d. kania2 where we have laid down various parameters and conditions under which an appeal can lie from a single judge to the division bench. para 115 at p. 1816 of the above-referred decision may be extracted thus: (scc p. 57, para 115)“thus, in other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. similarly, orders passed by.....
Judgment:

A. Varadarajan and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.

1. Counsel for both the parties are present and we have heard them at length. The High Court was clearly wrong in refusing to go into the merits of the case on the ground that appeal was not maintainable in view of the full bench decision in University of Delhi v. Hafiz Mohd. Said1. This decision is no longer good law in view of our decision in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania2 where we have laid down various parameters and conditions under which an appeal can lie from a Single Judge to the division bench. para 115 at p. 1816 of the above-referred decision may be extracted thus: (SCC p. 57, para 115)

“Thus, in other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. Similarly, orders passed by the trial Judge deciding question of admissibility or relevancy of a document also cannot be treated as judgments because the grievance on this score can be corrected by the appellate court in appeal against the final judgment.”

2. In the instant case as the amendment of the written statement was sought at the time of framing issues and it vitally affects the right of the parties and seeks to work some injustice to the plaintiff, it merits serious consideration by the appellate court on the question whether or not amendment should be allowed. It would certainly not be a purely interlocutory order against which no appeal before the LPA bench would be maintainable. More than this we would not like to say at this stage as we intend to send the case back to the division bench for admitting the appeal and disposing it of according to law on merits. The order of the division bench dated April 1, 1982 is set aside and the division bench is directed to admit the appeal and decide it on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. We would request the High Court to decide the appeal as early as possible as the suit is still pending. The appeal is accordingly allowed.


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