In Re: A.K.D. Rangaswami Raja and Another

S. R. NOS. 32993 and 32996:-- These relate to two memorandum of civil revision petitions purporting to be under Article 227 of the

Constitution against the order of a learned Judge of this court on two interlocutory applications on the original side of this court in two suits now pending on the original side of this court having been transferred from the District Court of Ram-nad.

In In Re: P. Moosa Kutty, to which one of us was a party, it was decided that Article 227 of the Constitution is confined to subordinate courts and a Judge of the High Court as such Is not subordinate to the High Court and a civil revision petition is not competent against an order of a learned

Judge of this court under that article. This view has been followed by other division Benches of this court. The papers in these two S. R. Numbers must be returned to the party as the revision petitions sought to be preferred are not competent.

S. R Nos. 32089 and 32991 of 1956: These relate to two original side appeals sought to be preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent

against the same order of the learned Judge. In substance, by this order the learned Judge directed that the 4th defendant in C. S. No. 30 of 1956

shall have liberty to adduce further evidence on the first part of issue 2 and also adduce evidence in and by way of rebuttal on the latter part of issue 2. The learned Judge also observed that the opposite side will be given the fullest opportunity of meeting the evidence adduced by the 4th

defendant.

We heard Mr. K. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, at considerable length. He contended that the order was a

judgment within the meaning of that word in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. He cited to us and relied upon the decisions of the Calcutta High

Court in Koramall Ramballav v. Mongilal Dalim-chand, 23 CWN 1017: AIR 1920 Cal 163 (B) ; Lea Badin Vs. Upendra Mohan Roy Choudhury and Others, Chandi v. Jnanendra Nath, 29 CLJ 225: AIR 1919 Cal 667 (D) ; and Mathura Sundari v. Haranchandra, ILR 43 Cal 857: AIR 1916

Cal 361 (E). He drew our attention to the leading judgment of this court in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar, ILR 35 Mad 1 (F) and to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Asrumati Debi Vs. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot and Others, .

We do not however think it necessary to examine each of these cases because we find ourselves in the happy position in which the Supreme Court found itself in Asrumati Debi Vs. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot and Others, , and, because we are satisfied that in none of the views referred to in any of these decisions, can an order of the character which is sought to be appealed against be regarded as a Judgment within the meaning of

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appeals sought to be pre ferred are therefore not competent. The papers will be returned to the party.