The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of the appeal and the application of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in allowing the amendment to the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

1. Heard on the question of maintainability and also on merits.

2. The order under challenge has been passed by learned Single Judge in an application filed with a prayer to amend the pleadings in view of subsequent developments having taken place in the matter. As a matter of fact, notification dated 12.2.2019 (Annexure P-29) to the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC registered as CMP No. 9113 of 2019 (in CWP No. 2785 of 2016) qua specification of dress to be provided to the members of the police force in the State of Himachal Pradesh came to be issued on 12.2.2019 during the pendency of the writ petition. In the writ petition, though similar notification dated 3.6.2013 Annexure P-9 is under challenge, however, in view of the subsequent notification dated 12.2.2019 on the same subject matter came to be issued during the pendency of the writ petition, the application for amendment in the writ petition came to be filed to place the same on record of the writ petition and also to assail its legality and validity.

3. Learned Single Judge while interpreting the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and observing that the notification has been issued during the pendency of the writ petition has concluded that for want of pleadings as to how the same is bad in law and the pleadings by way of proposed amendment sought to be incorporated in the writ petition has dismissed the application on the grounds inter alia that the same is not in conformity with the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It has further been observed that the application is cryptic also. The application, therefore, has been dismissed vide order under challenge in this appeal.

4. First coming to the question of maintainability of the appeal, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in titled Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kanta and Another, (1981) 4 SCC 8. In para 120 of this judgment, the interlocutory orders which have to be treated as judgments for the purpose of intra court appeal have been discussed. An order granting leave to amend the plaint by introducing a new cause of action is also included as one of such examples. The order under challenge in that case was passed in an application for appointment of receiver and grant of ad-interim injunction which was declined by learned trial Judge. The appeal within the meaning of the Letters Patent against such order was held to be maintainable. It has also been observed by the Apex court that the illustrations noted in the judgment are few. There may be other illustrations where an order can be stated to be a judgment for the purpose of Letters Patent and as such left it open to the Court seized of the matter to decide the same in the light of the tests, observations and principles enunciated in the judgment supra.

5. The apex Court while placing reliance on the judgment in Shah Babulal Khimji's case supra has again held in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2018) 11 SCC 722 as under:

"8. First contention is that the order of Single Judge was not a judgment finally affecting the rights of the parties and the non-maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal. Clause 15 of Letters Patent provides for intra-court appeals against the judgment of Single Judge of the High Court. The right of the Letters Patent Appeal to the High Court depends upon whether or not the decision of the Single Judge appealed from affects the merits of the question between the parties and their valuable rights. Whether an order is a judgment or an interlocutory order depends upon whether or not, it has finally decided the rights of the parties and whether it has the effect of affecting the rights of the parties. For an order to be a judgment, it is not always necessary that it should put an end to the controversy or terminate the suit. An interlocutory order determining the rights of the parties in one way or other is also a