1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.393 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1851 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2438 OF 2004 WITH PAUPER PETITION NO.1 OF 2005 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3333 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO.393 OF 2009 Ms.Farhat Jahan Ansari. ...Appellant. Vs. 1.Parchhaiyan Co-op.Hsg. Scty. Ltd. & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Uday Warunjikar i/b. Mr.N.Raja,for Appellant. Mr.Swapnil Bangur i/b. Sunil Shukla,for Respondent no.1. Mr.Y.R.Shah, for Respondent nos.3 & 4. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.R.KINGAONKAR,JJ. DATED: 6th April, 2010 2 P.C.: 1. This appeal challenges the order by which the learned Single Judge declined the permission for amending the plaint. In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D.Kania & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1786 an order rejecting the application for amendment in the plaint does not amount to judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for appellant relied on the provisions of Rule 876 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. They read as under:- 876. Appellate Court. The Chief Justice may, from time to time, constitute a bench of not less than two Judges (in this and the next succeeding chapter referred to as the Appellate Court ) to hear appeals and applications in appeals from decrees or orders passed by Judges exercising 3 Original Jurisdiction of the High Court. That rule makes the provision which is consequential to the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent which creates right of appeal. This rule merely empowers the Hon ble Chief Justice to constitute the bench for hearing the appeals which right of appeals is created by clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appeal is not maintainable. Appeal is disposed of. Notice of motion no.3333 of 2009 is also disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) ...