pvr 1 app2-11 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.2 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.37 OF 2009 IN ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.7 OF 2006 1.m.v.KAERSK VIRGINIA & Ors. ...Appellants vs. Jindal Poly Films Ltd. ...Respondent --- Mr.K.R.Shriram, for Appellants. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 14th January, 2011 P.C.: 1. By the order impugned in the appeal, the party to the suit has been permitted to lead evidence to prove certain document. The order made during the course of recording of evidence pvr 2 app2-11 permitting a party to lead evidence, admitting documents, rejecting document are all orders of interlocutory nature, they do not amount to judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and therefore, no appeal lies. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D.Kania and Another, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1786 . The Supreme Court in that judgment has held that normally the orders which are appealable under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code are appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In paragraph 120, the Supreme Court has elaborately given a list of the orders which can be called as judgments within the meaning of Clause 15 of Letters Patent. The orders which are essentially the orders of interlocutory nature are not judgments. In this view of the matter therefore, the appeal cannot be entertained, it is disposed of. It is made clear that as the order impugned is the interlocutory order, it is capable of pvr 3 app2-11 being challenge in the final order that may be passed in the suit. As in view of the aforesaid order, the appeal is disposed of, notice of motion no.4 of 2011 does not survive for consideration, it is also disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)