AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 314 wordsRajamannar, C.J.—An appeal is sought to be preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order of Subba Rao J. refusing to
transfer O. S. No. 20 of 1951 from the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, to the Original Side of this Court to be heard along with a suit pending
on the file of this Court, and staying the suit on the file of this Court until the disposal of the suit in the City Civil Court.
On the authorities, it is clear that the appeal is not maintainable. Neither the order refusing to transfer a suit from the file of the City Civil Court to
this Court, nor an order staying a suit pending in this Court is a ""judgment"" within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. See -- ''Narasa
Reddi v. Tar Mahommed'', AIR 1928 Mad 209 (A) and --''L. P. A. No. 74 of 1950 (Mad)'' (B).
Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a ruling in -- ''Krishna Reddi v. Thanikachala Mudali'', AIR 1924 Mad 90 (C) in which it was held
that an order transferring a suit from the file of a mofussil Court to this Court is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15. This decision cannot
be deemed to be good law any longer after the recent decision of the Supreme Court in -- Asrumati Debi Vs. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot and
Others, . Their Lordships held that an order of transfer of a suit made under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent is not a judgment within the meaning of
Clause 15, and therefore is not appealable. There is abundant authority for the position that an order staying a suit is not a ""judgment"" within the
meaning of that clause.
The appeal is not competent. The papers will therefore be returned to the party.