Skip to content


Hindusthan Petrolium Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sashi Bhusan Mondal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal No. Nil of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1984Cal81
AppellantHindusthan Petrolium Corporation Ltd.
RespondentSashi Bhusan Mondal
DispositionApplication rejected
Excerpt:
- .....the learned single judge has merely overruled the objections filed by the defendant against the special referee, such referee being appointed in terms of the preliminary decree. the said report is yet to be accepted and decree is yet to be passed on the basis thereof, which alone will decide the rights of the parties. in that view we do not think that the order appealed against can be treated to be a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent and appealable as such. on this ground alone we refuse the leave to prefer an appeal and reject the application accordingly. we make it very clear that we are not expressing ourselves on the merits of the challenge to the order now proposed to be appealed against, since that in our view would be open for challenge if.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application for leave to prefer an appeal against an order dt. May 2, 1983 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Original Side Suit No. 40 of 1974. By the impugned order the learned single Judge has merely overruled the objections filed by the defendant against the Special Referee, such Referee being appointed in terms of the preliminary decree. The said report is yet to be accepted and decree is yet to be passed on the basis thereof, which alone will decide the rights of the parties. In that view we do not think that the order appealed against can be treated to be a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and appealable as such. On this ground alone we refuse the leave to prefer an appeal and reject the application accordingly. We make it very clear that we are not expressing ourselves on the merits of the challenge to the order now proposed to be appealed against, since that in our view would be open for challenge if ultimately the decree is passed on the basis of the Special Referee's report and adversely against the defendant. Keeping the merits open, this application is disposed of by refusing the prayer made therein only on the ground that the proposed appeal is not maintainable. The interim order passed yesterday stands vacated.


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