A procedural order calling for pleadings from parties does not constitute a judgment under Chapter VIII R.5 and is not appealable.

1. The issue
The reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order of a Division Bench dated 15 September 2008. The following questions have been formulated for decision:
"(1) Where a learned Single Judge while hearing a writ petition calls for counter and rejoinder affidavits, but does not pass any order on the stay application either granting or refusing a stay, will the order amount to a refusal of interim relief to the petitioner either temporarily or impliedly and a 'judgment' within the meaning of Chapter VIII R.5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952;
(2) Does an order which adversely affects the valuable rights of a party by a temporary or implied refusal of interim relief have the trappings of a judgment."

2. The appellants sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the University to permit them to appear for counselling for admission to the Master of Social Work Diploma Course for 2008-09. A part of the relief sought was a direction calling for the answer sheets of the entrance test which was held on 28 June 2008.

3. The appellants averred in the writ petition that counselling was to be held on 31 August 2008. The learned Single Judge while entertaining the writ petition, passed the following order on 1 September 2008:
"Sri. S K Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondents. He prays for and is granted two week's time to file counter affidavit.
List on 16 September 2008."

4. A special appeal, Special Appeal No 1140 of 2008 was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, while considering the special appeal noted that the issue is whether there is a judgment within the meaning of Chapter VIII R.5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, Rules of Court when a Single Judge while hearing a writ petition calls for counter and rejoinder affidavits but does not pass any order on the application for stay, either granting or refusing stay. In other words, would this amount to a refusal of an interim order temporarily or impliedly, thereby amounting to a judgment within the meaning of Chapter VIII R.5.

5. History: Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and Chapter VIII R.5 of the Rules of Court
Before we deal with the body of precedent on the subject, it would be worthwhile to briefly trace the history of the incorporation of Chapter VIII R.5. In understanding the ambit of the expression "judgment" it is necessary to bear in mind the evolution of the Letters Patent and its association with the Amalgamation Order of 1948 and the Rules of Court. Both have to be analysed together.
(i) Chapter VIII R.5
R.5 of Chapter VIII, as it stands at present, reads as follows:
"5. Special appeal. - An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Art.226 or Art.227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award - (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of ap