- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Radhey Shyam v. State Of U.P
Judgment Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
This special appeal was filed by Radhey Shyam, the petitioner in an ongoing writ petition, challenging an order dated 31-3-1970 by a single Judge of the High Court which vacated earlier interim stay orders. The Court had previously passed interim stay orders on 27-1-1970 and 5-3-1970. The single Judge vacated those interim stay orders on 31-3-1970. The writ petition itself remained pending before the single Judge at the time of this appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the single Judge's interlocutory order dated 31-3-1970 vacating interim stay orders is appealable to a Division Bench under the relevant provisions (Chapter VIII, Rule 5, Rules of Court and Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court).
- Whether an order vacating or granting an interim stay in a pending writ petition amounts to a "judgment" for the purpose of permitting an appeal under the cited rules and Letters Patent.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bishambhar Nath v. Suraj Kali, 1959 All LJ 313 | Where a decision puts an end to the proceedings before the court in which it was made, that adjudication is a "judgment" within the meaning of Chapter VIII, Rule 5, Rules of Court. | The Court considered this authority but distinguished it because in that case the order finally disposed of proceedings, whereas the impugned order in the present matter did not dispose of the writ petition and was interlocutory. |
| Standard Glass Beads Factory v. Shri Dhar, 1960 All LJ 387 (AIR 1960 All 692) | Held that an order of a single Judge dismissing an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction is a "judgment" under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. | The Court noted this Full Bench authority but distinguished it on the ground that the decisions there finally disposed of proceedings, unlike the present interlocutory order. |
| Iftikar Husain v. Sharafat Ullah, Special Appeal No. 628 of 1961, D/-20-12-1961 (All) | Observed that an order granting or refusing an interim stay does not decide any question of right and does not amount to a judgment. | The Court relied on this observation to treat the impugned order as interlocutory and not a "judgment" for purposes of appealability. |
| G. B. Kapoor v. District Magistrate, Etah, 1967 All LJ 990 | Held that an order granting or vacating an interim order in a pending writ petition does not amount to a "judgment" and is not appealable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent or Chapter VIII, Rule 5, Rules of Court. | The Court followed this Division Bench authority as supporting the conclusion that the present interlocutory order is not appealable and forms part of the settled view of the Court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by addressing the threshold question of appealability. It examined authorities that define when an adjudication by a single Judge constitutes a "judgment" capable of being appealed. The Court identified two streams of authority:
- Authorities (Bishambhar Nath and Standard Glass Beads) where the impugned orders finally disposed of the proceedings before the Judge and were therefore treated as "judgments" for appeal purposes.
- Authorities (Iftikar Husain and G. B. Kapoor) holding that orders granting or vacating interim stays in pending writ petitions are interlocutory, do not decide any question of right, do not amount to a "judgment," and are not appealable under the cited provisions.
Applying these principles, the Court distinguished the earlier Full Bench/Division Bench decisions that involved final disposal of proceedings on the ground that the present order did not terminate the writ petition — the petition remained pending. The Court therefore classified the order dated 31-3-1970 as interlocutory.
Relying on the Division Bench authorities that treat interim stay orders as non-judgmental and not appealable, the Court concluded that the settled view of the High Court is that interlocutory orders of this type are not appealable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5, Rules of Court (and the corresponding Clause 10 of the Letters Patent). Because the appeal was therefore not maintainable, the Court did not proceed to consider the merits of the appeal.
Holding and Implications
Holding: APPEAL DISMISSED.
Implications:
- The single Judge's interlocutory order vacating interim stay orders (dated 31-3-1970) is not an appealable "judgment" under the authorities and rules cited; consequently, the special appeal was held not maintainable and dismissed.
- The writ petition remains pending before the single Judge; the Court expressly did not decide the substantive merits of the writ petition because the threshold appealability issue was decisive.
- The decision follows previously settled authorities of the High Court and therefore does not purport to set a new precedent beyond reaffirming the settled rule that interim stay orders in pending writ petitions are interlocutory and not appealable under the specified provisions.
End of summary (limited strictly to material contained in the provided opinion).
Judgement
OAK, C.J. :- This is a special appeal against an order passed by a single Judge of this Court vacating previous stay orders passed in a writ petition. On 27-1-1970 and 5-3-1970 interim stay orders were passed by the Court. Those interim stay orders were subsequently vacated by the learned single Judge on 31-3-1970. This special appeal by Radhey Shyam has been filed against the order dated 31-3-1970. Radhey Shyam is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition is still pending.
2. We considered at the outset whether the impugned order is appealable. In Bishambhar Nath v. Suraj Kali, 1959 All LJ 313 it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that where the effect of the decision in the proceedings in which it was made was to put an end to the proceedings so far as the Court before which that proceeding was pending was concerned, the adjudication would be "judgment" within the meaning of the term as contemplated in Chapter VIII, Rule 5, Rules of Court.
3. In Standard Glass Beads Factory v. Shri Dhar, 1960 All LJ 387 : (AIR 1960 All 692) it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that an order of a single Judge of the High Court dismissing an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction is a "judgment" within the meaning of Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of Allahabad High Court.
4. In the two cases referred to above the impugned order was a decision by a single Judge finally disposing of the proceedings before him. The situation in the instant case is different. The impugned order dated 31-3-1970 does not dispose of the writ petition. The writ petition is still pending before the single Judge. The impugned order is an interlocutory order.
5. In Iftikar Husain v. Sharafat Ullah, Spl. Appeal No. 628 of 1961, D/-20-12-1961 (All) it was observed by a Division Bench that an order granting or refusing an interim order of stay does not decide any question of right and does not amount to a judgment.
6. That decision was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in G. B. Kapoor v. District Magistrate. Etah, 1967 All LJ 990. It was held that an order granting or vacating an interim order in a pending writ petition does not amount to a "judgment" and is, therefore, not appealable under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of Allahabad High Court or under Chapter VIII. Rule 5, Rules of Court.
7. Thus the settled view of this Court is that interlocutory order of this type is not appealable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5, Rules of Court. Since the appeal is not maintainable, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the appeal.
8. The appeal is not maintainable. It is, therefore, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert