Case: K. V. V. Chathukutty Nambiar and Ten Others Vs. Malikkandakath Assainar Haji and Others

SHAH, J.1. In a suit filed by the first respondent in the Court of he Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry, for a decree for Rs. 200/- as rent for 1133 Malayalam Era and Rs. 24, 219.83 as damages for trees felled by one C.P.V. Moideen Hajee under a sale deed executed by Defendants 1 to 4 and one Gopalan Nambiar. The Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry, passed a decree for Rs. 200/- and proportionate costs and dismissed the suit for damages. Against that decree an appeal was preferred to the High Court of Kerala. The case was referred to a Full Bench. By a majority judgment the High Court set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case with a direction to restore it to its Original Number and to dispose it of "in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the judgment". The Court then proceeded on the application made by the defendants to issue a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. In the view of the Court certain questions were finally determined by the High Court and on that account the order was a final order, and the judgment being one of reversal and the claim at all relevant stages being for an amount exceeding Rs. 20, 000/- the defendants were entitled to a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution.2. In our judgment the High Court was not competent to issue a certificate. It is true that one of the questions in dispute between the parties was determined, viz., the right of the plaintiff to claim damages; but the quantum of damages was not determined, and for determining damages payable by the appellants the suit was remanded to the Court of First Instance. Such an order cannot be said to be a final order. The High Court was, in our view, incompetent to issue the certificate. The certificate is vacated.3. We may make it clear that it will be open to the aggrieved party it hereafter there is occasion to file an appeal to this Court to challenge the correctness of the judgment of the High Court in such an appeal.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]2. In our judgment the High Court was not competent to issue a certificate. It is true that one of the questions in dispute between the parties was determined, viz., the right of the plaintiff to claim damages; but the quantum of damages was not determined, and for determining damages payable by the appellants the suit was remanded to the Court of First Instance. Such an order cannot be said to be a final order. The High Court was, in our view, incompetent to issue the certificate. The certificate is vacated.3. We may make it clear that it will be open to the aggrieved party it hereafter there is occasion to file an appeal to this Court to challenge the correctness of the judgment of the High Court in such an appeal.