- (1.) ON the 28th February, 1966 the respondent instituted a suit against the appellant inter alia for a decree for Rs. 1634. 06 and for the return of 4 cylinders. On the 4th March, 1966 the plaintiff-respondent made an application for appointment of a Receiver. On March 14, 1966 the application for Receiver appeared as a new motion before A. N. Sen, J. His Lordship gave directions for the filing of affidavits. Then, on april 4, 1966 the application appeared in the list of adjourned motions. The defendant-appellant did not file any affidavit-in-opposition nor did they appear at the hearing of the motion. The learned interlocutory Judge passed an ex parte order appointing a Receiver. The defendant-appellant thereafter on
(2.) ON the 12th May, 1966 the Writ of Summons was served on the defendant-appellant. On the 17th May, 1966 the application of the defendant-appellant made on the 21st April, 1966 was heard. The learned interlocutory Judge was pleased to set aside the order of the 4th April, 1966 and directed that the application of the 4th march, 1966 would be heard on merits. On June 7, 1966 the application dated 4th March, 1966 was heard. The learned Judge passed no order on that application. Three days thereafter, that is, on the 10th June, 1966 the defendant-appellant's time to file the written statement expired. Then, on the 13th june, 1966 the suit was mentioned before A. N. Sen, J. for expeditious hearing and even on that date A. N. Sen, J. directed the defendant-appellant to file its written statement within three weeks. The time given by A. N. Sen, j. expired on the 4th July, 1966. Consequently, on the 6th July, 1966 the suit appeared in the warning list of undefendant suits before Banerjee, J. On the following day, namely, the 7th july, 1966 the defendant-appellant made an application before Banerjee, J, for leave to enter appearance and file written statement. On the 19th july, 1966 Banerjee, J. made an order inter alia that upon the defendant-appellant paying within one week from the date sixty gold mohurs to the plaintiff-respondent the defendant-appellant would be at liberty to file its written statement within one week thereafter.
(3.) THE present appeal is directed against Bnaerjee, J. order of the 19th july, 1966. The first question that arises in this appeal is the question of its maintainability. In other words, it has to be seen whether the order of banerjee, J. made on the 19th July, 1966 was a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent. If it was a judgment the present appeal was maintainable. If it was not a judgment the appeal would have to be dismissed on the preliminary ground that it was not maintainable.;