S.K Mookherjee, J.:—The present appeals are directed against an order, dated 2nd July, 1991, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Suit No. 593 of 1990, on the Original Side of this Court, whereby the learned Judge granted leave to the appellants/defendants to defend the suit, instituted by the plaintiff/respondent, inter alia, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,73,250.60 p. with interest, under Or. 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs with the Registrar, Original Side, within a month from date of the order, either in cash or by Bank Guarantee or by real properties within the jurisdiction of the said Court. During the pendency of the appeals, on an interlocutory application, a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 29th June, 1992, inter alia, granted stay on furnishing of security, in the form of Bank Guarantee, by the appellants, for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs and in the same order permitted the defendants/appellants to defend the suit upon filing written statements and permitted also the Trial Court to proceed with the suit. Subsequently, by several orders, following orders passed by the Apex Court, further directions were given regarding the invocation of Bank Guarantee.
2. In the appeals before us, preferred on behalf of the defendants, mainly, the contention, that the order of the learned Trial Judge should have been unconditional, had been argued. On behalf of the plaintiff/respondent, a contention about maintainability of the appeals had been raised. We have carefully considered the submissions of the contesting parties, with regard to the maintainability of the appeals, and, since, we propose to dispose of the appeals, by following the principle laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hiralal Deb Gupta v. Salil Kumar Paul, reported in AIR 1973 Cal 320, we do not feel called upon to go into the merits of the other contentions, canvassed by the rival parties. The decision of the Division Bench, referred to above lays down, in unequivocal terms, that no appeal is maintainable from an order granting conditional leave because such an order is not a judgment within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In laying down the said proposition, the Division Bench had followed an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Bonwarilal Roy v. Sohanlal Daga, reported in ILR (1955) 1 Cal 299. In full agreement with the said principle, we hold that the present appeals are not maintainable, and, accordingly, we dismiss the same. We are not unmindful about the fact of furnishing of a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 15 lakhs by the defendants/appellants, in terms of the order of the earlier Division Bench on the interlocutory application, but since we have already held that the appeal is not maintainable the defendants would now be required to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 2nd July, 1991. We extend the time for such compliance, after adjustment of the amount already deposited in compliance with the order of Division Bench dated 29th June 1992, by six weeks from date without altering any other terms of the order of the learned Single Judge. We make it clear, however, that we have not adjudicated the merits of the contentions raised before us by the rival parties on other points and all those would remain open. Each party will bear his or its own cost.
3. Prayer for stay of the Operation of this order is made and upon consideration of the materials on which we have proceeded, and the terms of the present order, such prayer is refused.
Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J.:—I agree.
Appeals dismissed.
K.G
Comments