N.N.Goswami - (1.)V.S. Deshpande, C.J- After a five- Judge Bench in University of Delhi v. Hafiz Mohd. Said ILR (1952) 2 Delhi 1, to which one of us (Deshpande J. as he then was) was a party, held that the maintainability of an appeal against an order of a learned single judge exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction in this court is governed by the provisions of the C P.C. and not by those of Letters Patent, the question is concluded for this court. Nevertheless, attempts are being made from time to time to persaade different Benches to take a different view, and if necessary, to refer the question to a larger Bench of seven Judges, it would, therefore, be necessary to consider the expediency of reference also in deciding upon the maintainability of this appeal.
(2.)In Suit No. 117 of 1974 filed by Mrs. Sushila Sabharwal against Mrs. Shanta Sabhar wal and others, for the partition and separat- possession of the house in which both the parties proceeded on the footing of an absence of joint Hindu family business the defendants had applied for taking up the plea of the existence of a joint Hindu family business by amending their written statement. The amendment was disallowed by the learned Single Judge as not being sought in good faith. This -appeal is against that order.
(3.)In urging that the appeal is maintainable under S. 10 (I) of the Delhi High Court Act wherein the word 'Judgment' has the same meaning as it had under C1.10 of Letters Patent counsel argues that the reason given in the University of Delhi case at page 9 of the report for holding that such an appeal, as the present one, cannot be entertained under S. 10 (I) of the Act is that no consistent and uniform interpretation was placed on the word "Judgment" as used in the said clause by different High Courts. The legislature in enacting S, 10 (I) of the Delhi High Court Act could not have, therefore, intended to use the word 'Judgment" in the wider sense which had been given to it by clause 10.