JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

[1] This is an appeal from an order of Tendolkar J., granting leave to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Manecksha that the order does not constitute a judgment within the meaning of clause (15), Letters Patent and no appeal lies.

[2] Now, the same question came up before a Bench of this Court constituting of Sir Harilal Kania, Ag. C. J., as he then was, and myself, in Sheshgiridas Shanbhag v. Sunderrao, 48 Bom. L. R. 252 : (A. I. R. (33) 1946 Bom. 361), and we held that allowing an amendment of the plaint was not a judgment within clause (15), Letters Patent. Mr. Seervai has tried to distinguish this judgment. According to him we were dealing there with a case where the contention was that the order made by my brother Coyajee J., granting leave to amend the plaint allowed matters to be pleaded which went beyond the scope of the suit and we held that assuming the learned Judge was wrong in allowing the amendment, the most that could be said was that he had improperly exercised the discretion vested in him to make the order under O. 6, R. 17. The contention was put forward in that case that Coyajee J., had no jurisdicti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document