1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 296 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2491 OF 2009 (Sachin Raman Dangra vs. Tirupati Developers & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JULY 18, 2009. P.C. : (PER F.M. REIS, J.) Heard Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the appellant. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 18th June 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2491 of 2009 whereby the said writ petition came to be dismissed. It is a case of the appellant that he is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1459 of 2001 filed against the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs.30,375/-. It is further his contention that Respondent No.2 had in May 1998 expressed his financial difficulties in respect of his business and as such he sought for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to meet the business commitments. As there was default in payment of said amount, the appellant filed the suit for recovery of the amount along with the interest. 2 The respondents/defendants filed their written statement and it is alleged that they have admitted the receipt of the sum of Rs.25,000/- on 20.5.1998 but it was further alleged that the said amount was repaid to the appellant/ plaintiff. After the issues were framed, the appellant filed an application dated 7.10.2008 under Order 18, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking directions to the respondents to begin with the evidence in view of the admission of receipt of the amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The learned trial judge by its order dated 23.2.2009 rejected the said application filed by the appellant. Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the said order of the learned trial judge came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 18.6.2009. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant inasmuch as according to him, as there was an admission of receipt of the amount, the burden with regard to repayment was squarely on the respondents and as such the respondents ought to have led their evidence before the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that the said judgment passed by 3 the learned Single Judge was to be considered as judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of Letters Patent and as such the present Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, we find that clause 15 of the Letters Patent is a provision which grants right of appeal to the aggrieved party against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Court to Letters Patent Bench with inbuilt exception and limitation applicable to said right of appeal. It is also a settled proposition of law that a right to appeal can be regulated and/ or restricted by the provisions of section providing such right. The legal right that is available to a party to prefer an appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge thus is not an unrestricted or unfettered right. The order of the learned Single Judge has to be a judgment within the meaning of the said expression of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in order for an appeal to be tenable. Once it clears that parameter of a judgment and is not hit by any of the exceptions stated in the Clause itself, an appeal may lie to a Letters Patent Bench. In the present case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge only stipulates the order in 4 which the evidence is to be recorded under Order 18 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Single Judge did not find any jurisdictional error committed by the learned Trial Judge in such determination. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is primarily a procedural order and does not determine any of the matters in controversy. The said order is not a decision which affects the merits of the dispute between the parties nor has any right or liability been determined. Considering that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is merely a formal order, procedural in nature and not an order determining the rights of the parties, the same cannot be considered to be a judgment within clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In view of the above, the present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable and consequently the same stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.