Abbas G. Essaji et al. v. Gordhan D. Solanki t/a Tailors, Misc. Civ. App. 12-D-67; Hamlyn, J.

Abbas G. Essaji et al. v. Gordhan D. Solanki t/a Tailors, Misc. Civ. App. 12-D-67; Hamlyn, J.

Appellant applied to the district court for a copy of that court’s order and received a document headed “Ruling”. At the end of the document, after the magistrate’s signature, there was a sentence, “Order; The date of vacant possession to (sic) 30/11/1967. Cost of 100/- to the Respondent.” There followed a second signature. The preliminary issue on appeal was whether the filing of this document satisfied the provisions of Order 39 rule 1 and Order 40 rule, 2, which require that an appellant file a copy of the order appealed from.

            Held: (1) Section 3 of the Civil Procedure Code defines an order as “the formal expression of a decision of a civil court which is not a decree.” Although the code contains no provision prescribing the form in which orders should be drafted, they should be in a form similar to the form of decree set out in Appendix D to the Indian Civil Procedure Code. (2) The purported order in the present case virtually forms a part of the ruling and cannot be described as a “formal expression of a decision.” It does not satisfy the requirement that appellant file a copy of the order appealed from. (3) It would be improper to adjourn the appeal in order to give appellant the opportunity to file the proper papers. Citing Harnam Singh Bhogal, t/a Harnam Singh v. Hirda Ram (1919) A.I.R. (Lahore) 125. The appeal was dismissed.