1953 (2) TMI 53 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. Definition of 'judgment' under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
3. Whether an order for transfer under clause 13 of the Letters Patent constitutes a 'judgment'.

Detailed Analysis:

Competency of the Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
The appeal was directed against a judgment of an Appellate Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed an appeal against an order made by a single Judge under clause 13 of the Letters Patent. The primary issue was whether the appeal was competent in law. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the preliminary ground that the order appealed against was not a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Definition of 'Judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
The High Court's decision was based on an earlier pronouncement where it was held that an order for transfer of a suit under clause 13 of the Letters Patent was not a 'judgment'. This view was supported by Sir Richard Couch C.J. in The Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. The Oriental Gas Company, where 'judgment' was defined as a decision affecting the merits of the question by determining some right or liability. The term 'judgment' could be either final or interlocutory, but it must determine the whole cause or suit or a part of it, leaving other matters to be determined.

Whether an Order for Transfer under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent Constitutes a 'Judgment'
The Supreme Court examined various judicial opinions on whether an order for transfer under clause 13 is a 'judgment'. The Madras High Court in Krishna Reddi v. Thanikachala held that such an order is a 'judgment', while the Rangoon High Court in Dayabhai v. Murugappa Chettiar held the opposite. The Supreme Court noted that the term 'judgment' in the Letters Patent means a decree in a suit determining the rights of the parties. The Court found that an order of transfer does not terminate or dispose of the suit but merely changes the forum for trial. Thus, it does not satisfy the criteria of a 'judgment' as it does not affect the merits of the controversy or terminate the suit.

The Court also discussed the distinction between an order refusing to rescind leave to sue under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and an order for transfer under clause 13. The former could be considered a 'judgment' because rescinding leave would terminate the suit, whereas an order for transfer does not end the suit but merely changes its venue.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was correct in its view that an order for transfer under clause 13 of the Letters Patent is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs. The judgment emphasized that not every judicial pronouncement on a right or liability is a 'judgment' for the purposes of appeal under clause 15, and the essential feature of a 'judgment' is its finality in disposing of the suit or proceeding.