( 1 ) THESE- two appeals provide an opportunity for construing the nature of the orders passed in civil suits by the learned Single Judges sitting on the Original Side when the orders would amount to judgment within the meaning of Section 10 (1) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 so as to make appeals thereagainst maintainable.

( 2 ) IN FAO (OS) 56/96 an application filed under Order 19 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking cross-examination on affidavits filed by the opposite party in the course of proceedings under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1939 has been rejected by the order impugned. We must place on record our appreciation of the fairness of learned counsel for the appellant - Mr. P. L. Aggarwal, advocate, who faced with the challenge to the maintainability of appeal filed by him brought out and placed before the Court several decisions rendered by Delhi High Court, whether they favoured his viewpoint or not. That is what is expected from a counsel, an officer of the Court, discharging his duty towards the court, as paramount as his duty towards the client.

( 3 ) FAO (OS) 61/96 is directed against an order allowing an application under Order 11 Rule 1 and 4 Civil Procedure Code seeking leave to deliver interrogatories on behalf of the plaintiff for examination of the defendant No. 2/. appellant allowed in part. Mr. P. A. S. Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant has supplemented the submissions made by Mr. Aggarwal, advocate.

( 4 ) SECTION 10 (1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 provides as under :-

"10. Powers of Judges (1) Where a single judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 5 on that Court, an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the single Judge to a Division Court of that High Court. (2) xxxxxxxxx

( 5 ) WHAT would be a judgment for the purpose of Section 10 (1) of the Act has been subject matter of judicial scrutiny and interpretation in a good number of decisions. It will be useful to notice a few judgments cited at the bar.

5. 1 In Begum Aftab Zamani VS. Shri Lal Chand Khanna, AIR 1969 Delhi 85 matter had come up before a Full Bench of Delhi High Court for the purpose of deciding the amount of court fee payable on appeal presented under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act and in that context the word judgment also came up for consideration. It was held that a judgment may be either final or preliminary or interlocutory. Regard must be had not to the form of adjudication but to its effect upon the suit or the civil proceedings in which it is made. If its effect is to put an end to the suit or proceeding, or if its effect, if not complied with, is to put an end to the suit or proceeding, the adjudication is indisputably ajudgement. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration would be the nature of the order and its effect upon the suit or the civil proceeding in which it is made; each case depending on its peculiar facts and circumstances.

5. 2 University of Delhi VS. Hafiz Mohd. Said and Ors. , AIR 1972 Delhi 102 was a larger Bench of 5 judges. Therein the Full Bench preferred TO to assign a narrower meaning to judgment holding that only such adjudications would amount to judgment as would have the effect of a decree or of an order mentioned in Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule I of the CPC. Begum Aftab Zamani s case (supra) was distinguished holding that therein the point arising for decision was mainly under the Court Fee Act. The learned Judges did not also approve of the view that the term judgment in Section 10 (1) has to be interpreted by applying the tests laid down in various judgments given under the Letters Patent.

5. 3 University of Delhi s case (supra) case was followed by a Division Bench in The Public Trustee VS. Rajeshwar Tyagi and Ors. , AIR 1972 Delhi 302 and it was held that the order of the Single Judge holding that he had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the sui