P. A. CHOUDARY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed against a mere notice issued on 12-10-82 by our learned brother Lakshminaryana Reddy, J. , in C. M. P. No. 12880/82 in A. S. No. 2269/82. The present appellants are the petitioners in the said civil Miscellaneous Application. they were sued by the respondent herein in O. S. No. 65/76 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur for recovery of her steam launch by name "swaraja Lakshmi", and for arrears of rent or profits for the period of April to end of June, 1976 at a rate of Rs. 600. 00 per month and for future profits. The plaintiffs case was that she was the owner of the steam launch which she gave to the first appellant-defendant on lease for one year commencing from 1-8-74 and ending with 31-7-75 on a monthly rent of Rs. 350. 00 and that the first appellant-defendant has failed to return and deliver the launch to her after the expiry of lease, thus rendered himself liable for damages. The second appellant was the second defendant, who stood surety to the first defendant in the suit. The suit was opposed by the first appellant-defendant and the second appellant-defendant, his surety. The trial Court overruled the defence and decreed the suit on 26-8-82 and directed immediate delivery of the launch to the plaintiff and also directed the first defendant to pay profits from the date of suit on 15-7-76 till the day the launch was delivered to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 350. 00 per month. The present appellants feeling aggrieved by the above decree had filed A. S. No. 2269/82 in this Court and moved in the above miscellaneous application for stay of all further proceedings that might be taken by the plaintiff pursuant to the decree in the above mentioned O. S. 65/76 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur. According to the procedure of this Court a regular first appeal is automatically admitted in the Registry and it is the miscellaneous application that comes for initial judicial scrutiny. Our learned brother Lakshminarayana Reddy. J. , before whom the above C. M. P. came for orders. ordered notice to the plaintiff returnable in one week on 12-10-82. The defendants-appellants feeling aggrieved by that filed this appeal against that ordering of notice by out learned brother Lakshminarayana Reddy, J. The registry has taken objection to the maintainability of the appeal.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri Suryanarayanamurthy for the appellants at full length and we are fully satisfied that this particular appeal is wholly incompetent and cannot be maintained under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It should be emphasised that the institution of an appeal is a statutory creation and is unknown to that grand old dame, common Law. This appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The question whether an appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patents, is competent against a mere ordering of notice by a learned single judge should therefore be answered only on the basis of the meaning the word judgment bears in clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides for a right of appeal only against a judgment passed by a learned single judge. If ordering notice within that meaning then appeal would be competent. The question therefore is whether in ordering notice on the appellants application for grant of stay, Lakshminarayana Reddy, J. , has passed a judgment. It must be admitted that the meaning of the word judgment has sometimes been variedly interpreted in our High Court itself by some learned judges acting on the assumption that even ordering notice without finally adjudicating upon the merits of the C. M. P. would amount to passing of a judgment. But its ordinary meaning is one which Halsburys Laws of England gives us any decision given by a court on a question at issue between the parties (se Burrows Words and Phrases ). According to this meaning of the word judgment, where there is no adjudication on merits

Click Here to Read the rest of this document