( 1 ) LEARNED single Judge of this Court vide order dated 9th November, 2004 has referred the following questions of law to be answered by a larger bench:-"1. Whether an appeal would lie under Rule 4 of the Rules against any order made by the Registrar under Rule 3 on an application/matter against which no appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, Delhi High Court Act, 1966 or the letters Patent of this Court , and if the answer to above question is in negative, whether Rule 4 needs to be retained in the Rules or needs to be suitably amended so as to bring the said rule in confirmity with the Code and Act. "

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner had drawn our attention to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd v. Motorola Inc. , (2005) 2 SCC 145. It was submitted that in view of the said decision, appeal under Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court Rules (Original Side), 1967 was maintainable even if no appeal has been provided under the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the `code , for short ). Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that rule 4 of the Delhi High Court Rules (Original Side), 1967 only provides a forum to which an appeal may lie against an order of a Registrar but it does not provide for and confer any right to appeal. It was accordingly submitted that rule 4, therefore, has to be read along with Order XLIII of the Code. An appeal would only lie against the order passed by the Registrar if permitted and allowed under Order XLIII of the Code. To support his contention the learned counsel relied upon decision of five Judges of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. A. S. Dhupia and Anr. reported in AIR 1972 Delhi 108, wherein provisions of Code and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 have been examined and it was held that Section 10 of the said Act does not confer a right of appeal but merely provides for a forum against to which an appeal may lie. Reference was also made to decision of this Court in the case of The East India hotels Pvt. Ltd vs. Jyoti Pvt Ltd. reported in 1996 III AD (Delhi) 242 and vidyawati Construction Company vs. Rail India Technical and Economic Services ltd. reported in 2001 (59) DRJ 126. Lastly, reference was made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babu Lal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and anr. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1786 wherein the meaning scope and purport of the word judgment as appearing in clause 15 of the Letters Patent was examined and it was held that whenever a trial judge decides a controversy that affects valuable rights of one of the parties, it must be treated and regarded as a judgment within the meaning of the said clause.

( 3 ) IN order to decide the questions referred and arising for our consideration, we are required to examine some of the provisions of the Delhi high Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) as well as the Delhi High Court (Original side) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to the rules, for short ). Section 7 and 10 of the Act read as under:-"7. Practice and Procedure in the High Court of Delhi- Subject to the provisions of the Act, the law in force immediately before the appointed day with respect of practice and procedure in the High Court of Delhi and accordingly the High Court shall have all such powers to make rules and others with respect to practice and procedure as are immediately before the appointed day exercisable by the High Court of Punjab and shall also have powers to make rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure for the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction: provided that any rules or orders which are in force immediately before the appointed day with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court of Punjab shall, until varied or revoked by rules or orders made by the High Court of delhi, apply with the necessary modificatio