ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2007 NO. 288 OF 2007 NO. 288 OF 2007 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2112 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO. 2112 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO. 2112 OF 2005 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 2433 OF 1997 NO. 2433 OF 1997 NO. 2433 OF 1997 Mr.Arnold J.Von Geyer & Anr. ...Appellants. Vs. Mumtaz Iqbal Shaikh & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Denzil D’Mello for the Appellants. Mr.D.H.Mehta i/by M/s.Divya Shah Associates for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and the learned counsel for the Respondents. The above Appeal has been preferred against the interlocutory order dated 18th December, 2006 which read as under:- "1. The learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 states that in case the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 decide to alienate flat No.3 which is described in prayer clause (a) of this motion, they will inform the purchaser that the sale is subject to the result of this suit and a recital to that effect will be included in the conveyance and within a period of one week of the execution of the conveyance, a copy of the conveyance will be supplied to the Plaintiffs. ( 2 ) Statement is accepted. In my opinion, in view of the above statement, coupled with the fact that the plaintiffs have already registered lis pendence, which adequately protects the interest of the plaintiffs, no interim order is necessary. Notice of motion is disposed off." 2. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 very strongly contended that the above Appeal is not maintainable and in that behalf he relied on the recent Judgment of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors. Midnapore Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors. Midnapore Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Vs. Vs. Chunilal Nanda & Ors. (2006) 5 S.C.C. Page 399 Chunilal Nanda & Ors. (2006) 5 S.C.C. Page 399 Chunilal Nanda & Ors. (2006) 5 S.C.C. Page 399 wherein the Supreme Court after referring to the well-known Judgment of the Supreme Court in Shah Shah Shah Babulal Babulal Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 S.C.C. Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 S.C.C. Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 S.C.C. 8 has referred in paragraph 15 and 16 as under:- "15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories: i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case. ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case. iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case. ( 3 ) iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. 16. The term "judgment" occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold and not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent." 3. In view of the above, we are clearly of the view that the above Order is not a "Judgment". Hence, the Appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)