C.T. Narasa Reddi vs Hajee Tar Mohammad Aycob Sait

Odgers, J.—This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Jackson, dated the 22nd February, 1927, refusing to transfer the

suit of the plaintiff Hajee Tar Mahomed Ayoob Sait from the City Civil Court to the Court of the District Munsif of Vellore. Hajee Tar Mahomed

and the defendant in the City Civil Court suit, C. T. Narasa Reddi, did business together and the City Civil Court suit alleges that the defendant

owes the plaintiff a sum of about Rs. 1,300. Subsequently, C. T. Narasa Reddi filed a suit in the Vellore Court against Hajee Tar Mahomed

Ayoob Sait, alleging that on the other hand a sum of about Rs. 700 was due to himself. Narasa Reddi moved the High Court to transfer the City

Civil suit to the Vellore Court. This was refused and the matter now comes before us on Letters Patent Appeal. Now the question is whether this is

a matter within the purview of the Full Bench case in Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar ILR (1912) M 1 : 1912 21 MLJ 1. This case has recently

been considered and its meaning expressed by the present Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Ramesam in The Official Assignee Vs. A. Ramalingappa

and Another, . The present learned Chief Justice recognised that the question is a difficult one and adopts the language of Sir Arnold White, i.e.,

If its effect, whatever its form may be, and whatever may be the nature of the application on which it is made, is to put an end to the suit or

proceeding so far as the court before which the suit or proceeding is pending is concerned, or if its effect, if it is not complied with, is to put an end

to the suit or proceeding, I think the adjudication is a judgment within the meaning of the clause.

And later the learned Chief Justice observes that

If the effect of the order is to allow the proceedings to go on it is impossible to say that it satisfies the test laid down by Sir Arnold White in the Full

Bench case.

Now on the objection that no Letters Patent Appeal lies it appears to me that applying this principle matters are left exactly as they were and

that it is that that distinguishes this case from the case in Krishna Reddi v. Thanikachala Mudali ILR (1924) M 136.45 MLJ 153 (Sir Walter

Schwabe, C. J., and Mr. Justice Ramesam) which is a case similar in this way, namely, that the order of a Judge is there said to be a judgment

within Article 15 of the Letters Patent and therefore appealable and this is put on the ground that in that case the Judge by his order put an end to

the case as it stood in Chingleput and conferred a jurisdiction on this Court in respect of that particular case. It seems to me that the case before us

is different and that the order of the learned Judge does not put an end to any of the rights of the parties and the effect of the order now appealed

from is to allow the proceedings to go on. I therefore think that on this ground it must be held that the Letters Patent Appeal so far as the order

refusing to transfer is concerned does not lie and the party has no right to have the case transferred. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with

costs.

The C.M.P. No. 1033 of 1927 is also dismissed but without costs.

Curgenven, J.

I agree. It may be conceded that an order transferring a suit would amount to a judgment within Section 15 of the Letters Patent on the ground

explained by Sir Walter Schwabe, C. J., in Krishna Reddi v. Thanikachala Mudali ILR (1924) M 136. 45 MLJ 153 namely, that it terminates the

case in one court and creates a jurisdiction in the other to try it. The learned Chief Justice''s view was based primarily upon the construction put

upon the word ""judgment"" in the Full Bench Case Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar ILR (1912) M 1 : 1912 21 MLJ 1 and applying that

construction it seems to me that the nature of the order now under consideration was not to put an end to any right which the party enjoyed to have

the suit transferred, because, in fact, he had no such right, but that it was simply to leave matters as they were before the application was made. In

D.K. Asher Vs. V.C. Gopalaratnam, , Kumaraswami Sastriar, J., considered the effect of certain orders refusing to grant various prayers, such as

for the issue of a commission, the raising of an issue, or to amend the pleadings, and in the actual matter before him, which was a refusal of an

application to grant inspection, he held that it would come within the same category and so would be unappealable, basing his judgment upon the

test proposed in the Full Bench case. Similarly in The Official Assignee Vs. A. Ramalingappa and Another, the present learned Chief Justice,

applying the same definition, concluded that if the effect of the order in question is to allow the proceedings to go on as before it does not amount

to a judgment within the clause. I think the order in this case answers to the same test and accordingly that it is not appealable. I agree therefore

that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. The C. M. P. also will be dismissed but without costs.