1935 (6) TMI 20 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "judgment" in the Letters Patent of the Indian High Courts.
2. Whether an order transferring a suit from a subordinate Court to the High Court constitutes a "judgment" under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent.

Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Definition of "judgment" in the Letters Patent of the Indian High Courts:
The central issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term "judgment" as used in Clause 13 of the Letters Patent of the Rangoon High Court. The court noted that the term "judgment" has been a subject of controversy in India for nearly 70 years and remains unsettled. The court referred to various legal precedents, including Ex parte Chinery, Onslow v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and Ex parte Moore, to elucidate the distinction between a "judgment" and an "order." The court emphasized that in legal language, a "judgment" is a decision obtained in an action, whereas an "order" is any other decision. The court further clarified that in the Letters Patent of the High Courts, the term "judgment" means a decree in a suit by which the rights of the parties at issue in the suit are determined. The term "suit" includes suits instituted by a plaint or by an originating summons.

2. Whether an order transferring a suit from a subordinate Court to the High Court constitutes a "judgment" under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent:
The court examined whether an order transferring a suit from a subordinate Court to the High Court qualifies as a "judgment" under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. The court held that a final judgment is a decree in a suit by which all the matters at issue therein are decided, while a preliminary or interlocutory judgment is a decree in a suit by which the right to the relief claimed is decided, but further proceedings are necessary before the suit can be entirely determined. All other decisions are orders and are not "judgments" under the Letters Patent or appealable as such. The court concluded that an order transferring a suit does not fall within the ambit of the term "judgment" in Clause 13, Letters Patent. The court also noted that the High Court has jurisdiction to make an order of transfer under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code, and such an order is not appealable as it is not a "judgment" under the Code or any other express enactment.

Conclusion:
The court answered the question propounded in the negative, stating that an order transferring a suit from a subordinate Court to the High Court is not a "judgment" within Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. The court assessed the costs at Rs. 340, to abide by the result of the appeal. All judges concurred with the judgment delivered by the Chief Justice.