SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1922 Supreme(Mad) 146

C TROTTER
Kannayalal Bhoya – Appellant
Versus
Balaram Paramasukdoss – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.

1. In this case the matter comes before us on appeal from an order of Phillips, J. It arose in this way. An issue or issues were framed and he directed that a particular issue should be tried before the trial of the rest of the suit. He tried that issue and he gave a decision upon the hearing of that trial, and he gave it in what is called a judgment. Speaking for myself, I do not see how it could be called anything else. There was an issue directly to be tried; we have got the decision of a Judge upon matters in issue in the action between the parties; and I have tried to find some other mode of expressing what he did and I could find none - he gave his judgment. The English cases are quite clear as far as the distinction between "judgment" and "order" is concerned and the guiding principle is that a decision is a judgment which is given in an action - see Ex-parte Chinery (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 342 and Onslow v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 465. The matter here is to be decided under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent where the right of appeal is from a judgment of the Original Side. There have been a considerable number of cases














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top