LPA No.2080 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.2080 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.11.2011 Ram Vir Singh ... Appellant versus Vice Chancellor, DBCR, Murthal & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present : Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** Permod Kohli, J.(Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 02.09.2011 passed by learned Single Judge declining the prayer of the appellant for early hearing of the writ petition. Impugned order thus, reads: “This application under Section 151 of CPC for early hearing of the above mentioned writ petition. No ground for early hearing is made out. Dismissed.” The writ petition is of the year 2009. Learned Single Judge, who is seized of the matter, deem it appropriate not to grant the prayer of early hearing. We are afraid that such an order can be subjected to an appeal when it does not fall within the purview of the “judgment” or an order, deciding the rights of the parties. For challenge an order in Letters Patent Appeal, it must be established that the order under challenge either constitutes a judgment or decide the rights of any of LPA No.2080 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the parties before the Court. A similar issue came to be examined by Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1786 wherein following observations have been made: “Thus, in other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. Similarly, orders passed by the trial Judge deciding question of admissibility or relevancy of a document also cannot be treated as judgments because the grievance on this score can be corrected by the appellate court in appeal against the final judgment. That the trial Judge being a senior court with vast experience of various branches of law occupying a very high status should be trusted to pass discretionary or interlocutory orders with due regard to the well settled principles of civil justice. Thus, any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit which may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice one party or the other cannot be treated as a judgment otherwise the appellate court (Division Bench) will be flooded with appeals from all kinds of orders passed by the trial Judge. The courts must give sufficient allowance to the trial Judge and raise a presumption that any discretionary order which he passes must be presumed to be correct unless it is ex facie legally erroneous or causes grave and substantial injustice. That the interlocutory order in order to be a judgment must contain the traits and trappings of finality either when the order decides the questions in controversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the suit itself or in a part of the proceedings.” Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, we find that LPA No.2080 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the learned Single Judge has simply declined the prayer for early hearing. It does not in any manner cause any prejudice to the appellant nor does it decide the rights of the parties in any manner whatsoever. Hence, the letters patent appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. (Permod Kohli) Judge November 14, 2011 (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) sonia Judge