Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by the unsuccessful respondents for leave to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment and decree of this court dated 2 -1 -1952. When the application was originally heard, two following questions raised were considered very important and we therefore referred them for decision to a Full Bench: 1 Whether in a case which involves a question of great public or private importance certificate for leave to appeal under Art. 133(1)(c), Constitution of India and S. 109(c), Civil P.C. can be given, even though the valuation is less than that prescribed by cls. (a) and (b) of Art. 133(1), Constitution of India and S. 110, Civil P.C. and the point in dispute is measurable by money? 2 Whether a decision on the point of res judicata when there are different views of different High Courts on the point can be said to raise questions of great public and private importance?
(2.) THE Full Bench has given the following answers to these questions: 1 If a case involves a question of great public or private importance, certificate for leave to appeal under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, and S. 109(c), Civil P.C., can be given, even though the valuation is less than that prescribed by cls. (a) and (b) of Art. 133(1), Constitution of India, and S. 110, Civil P.C., and the point in dispute is measurable by money. 2. Generally speaking a point of res judicata may not be said to raise questions of great public or private importance, but that sometimes it may raise questions of great public or private importance, and that in this particular case, the point of res judicata, which has been raised, does raise a question of great public importance. Learned counsel for the successful appellant however argued that because the previous suit was dismissed on the ground of non -joinder, therefore, the decision about the interpretation of the rent note need not operate as res judicata in the present case. It may be noted that the interpretation of the document had a bearing on the question of non -joinder of the parties also. The important question was the interpretation of the document and it has been held by the Full Bench that the question of res judicata as raised in this case does raise a question of great public importance. We do not think that after the decision of the Full Bench we shall be justified in withholding the leave to appeal on the ground which has now been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, opposite party.
(3.) ANOTHER question which was now raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party but was not raised when the application was last heard by this Bench is that when the present suit was filed Constitution of India was not in force and no appeal lay against the judgment or decree of this Court to any other Court. Simply because, judgment of this Court was delivered after the Constitution had come into force, it could not be appealable. This question was very carefully considered in an unreported case of - 'Maharaja Umrao Singh v. Shri Bhagwati Singh', Misc. No. 9 of 1951 (Raj) (A), decided by this very Bench on 20 -8 -1951. In that case too the suit was fried before the Constitution of India came into force but" the judgment of this Court was delivered after the Constitution of India had come into force. It was held on a consideration of different authorities that an appeal to the Supreme Court lay against such a judgment and decree. It was argued by Mr. R.K. Rastogi on behalf of the opposite party that in that case certain authorities were not considered. These authorities have been placed before us now. They are as follows: 1. 'Mashedeo Khan v. B. Mahomed Azim',, 5 Ind Cas 980 (LB) (B); 2. - 'Gajrajlal v. Ramdinlal',, 8 Ind Cas 8 (All) (C); - 3. Satghuri v. Mujidan', 15 Cal 107 (D); 4. - 'Suri Bhatta v. Sitarama Bhatta',, 7 Mad 195 (E).;