Skip to content


Subbiah thevar Vs. Ponnuswami Thalavar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad1021
AppellantSubbiah thevar
RespondentPonnuswami Thalavar and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....of the learned chief justice is a final judgment or order within the meaning of clause 15, letters patent. it appears to us that it cannot be so styled. it is merely an order allowing the evidence to be adduced. it is contended for the appellant that it is an order for a new trial, the old trial having been virtually closed. it appears to us that to speak of the adducing of fresh evidence in a trial, as if it were a new trial, is straining language too far. it is also urged that the order under appeal has finally put an end to the appellant's right to have the trial closed in the district court without fresh evidence. we do not agree that appellant has any such right in law, so that this is not a. matter of putting an end to any such right, for the above reasons we hold that no appeal.....
Judgment:

1. A preliminary point has been taken that no appeal lies. We think it must be upheld. The order under appeal is an order giving permission to the respondent to adduce in the District Court evidence which that Court had refused time to the respondent to call. The District Court's order was of an interlocutory nature and it has not yet passed judgment in the suit. The question we have to decide is whether the order of the learned Chief Justice is a final judgment or order within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent. It appears to us that it cannot be so styled. It is merely an order allowing the evidence to be adduced. It is contended for the appellant that it is an order for a new trial, the old trial having been virtually closed. It appears to us that to speak of the adducing of fresh evidence in a trial, as if it were a new trial, is straining language too far. It is also urged that the order under appeal has finally put an end to the appellant's right to have the trial closed in the District Court without fresh evidence. We do not agree that appellant has any such right in law, so that this is not a. matter of putting an end to any such right, For the above reasons we hold that no appeal lies and dismiss this appeal with costs.


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