An order adversely affecting a valuable right of a party or deciding an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceeding may be considered a judgment.

MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ.

These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent take exception to the order dated 7 March 2014 of the learned Trial Judge. By the impugned order the Notice of Motion No.232 of 2012 taken out by the plaintiffs to set aside the order of Prothonotary & Senior Master extending time to file written statement, is disposed of as infructuous and Notice of Motion (L) No.369 of 2014 taken out by the defendant seeking to recall the order dated 17 February 2014 is allowed.

2. The broad facts leading to filing of these appeals are, appellant-plaintiffs filed the present suit being Suit No.4378 additional FSI of 1573.90 sq.ft which has become available due to a change in the Development Control Rules in respect of the suit land belongs to the original plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also claim the sum of Rs.1.60 crores together with interest thereon from the respondent-defendant for utilization of the said FSI.

3. It appears that since no written statement was filed in the suit, the matter was listed before the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court on 12 December 2013. At that time, the Prothonotary & Senior Master passed the following:

“... … … The Advocate for Defendant submits that he desires to withdraw his appearance. Mr. Nitin G.Raut, Advocate for Defendant, can do so as per law by taking out an appropriate proceedings, if he so desires. It is made clear that since Vakalatnama is filed, Advocate for Defendant has to file Written Statement. Accordingly, by way of last chance, time granted to Defendant to file Written Statement on or before 30-01-2014, failing Suit against Defendant will be transferred to the list of Undefended Suits.”

When the matter was again listed before the Prothonotary & Senior Master on 30 January 2014, the following order was passed by him:

“... … …. Advocate for Defendant submits that he wrote a letter to his client for seeking discharge.

However, same is returned back with the postal remark “LEFT”. In that view of matter, Advocate for Defendant is required to take out appropriate proceeding for getting himself discharge as per law. Advocate for Plaintiffs is objecting, since last two occasions same statement was made and time sought. However, in the interest of justice, by way of last chance, time is granted to take out appropriate proceeding till 21-02-2014, failing Suit against Defendant will be transferred to the list of Undefended Suits.”

4. It appears that in the meantime, the suit was listed before the learned Trial Judge on 17 February 2014 and the learned Trial Judge passed the following order:-

“Place for exparte decree on 24 February 2014.”

5. Thereafter, the defendant filed Notice of Motion (L) No.369 of 2014 with a prayer to recall the order dated 17 February 2014 and to take written statement of the defendant on record after condoning the delay with liberty to defend the suit.

6. In the meantime the plaintiffs had taken out another notice of motion being Notice of Motion No.232 of 2012 for setting aside the order dated 30 January 2014 of the Prothonotary & Senior Master granting time to the defendant to file written statement upto 21 February 2014.

7. By the impugned order under appeal the learned Trial Judge has recalled the order dated 17 February 2014 and granted liberty to the defendant to file and serve the written statement by 18 March 2014. The aforesaid liberty was granted subject to the condition that the defendant shall pay the plaintiffs costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- by 14 March 2014. There is no dispute that the defendant tendered the costs of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiffs who accepted the same without prejudice to its rights and contentions. The written statement affirmed on 20 February 2014 has also been taken on record after payment of above costs.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant raises a preliminary objection that the appeals are not maintainable. This objection is raised on the ground that the impugned order is not a judgment within the m