Appeals under special appellate provisions are limited to Code-defined judgments and appealable orders, not every single-judge order.

An appeal under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 lies only from orders that qualify as a "judgment" within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court read the Act with the original-side rules and held that the Code's appeal structure continues to govern appealability, so only decrees and orders made appealable under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 are covered. Broader Letters Patent tests were not imported. The impugned order was therefore not appealable and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 lies from every order of a single judge exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction, or only from those orders which amount to a "judgment" as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The statutory scheme showed that Section 10(1) created the appellate forum, but did not itself identify which interlocutory orders were appealable. The Court read the Delhi High Court Act together with the procedural rules framed under Sections 122 and 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly Rule 19 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, which made the Code applicable to original-side proceedings except where otherwise provided. The Court held that the expression "judgment" in Section 10(1) was intended to bear the meaning given in Section 2(9) of the Code, and that the established appeal structure under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code continued to govern appealability. The legislative history and the unsettled nature of the Letters Patent interpretations were treated as reasons not to import the broader Letters Patent tests into Section 10(1).

Conclusion: The appeal lay only against orders which are judgments within the meaning of the Code, and, apart from decrees, only against orders covered by Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was not appealable under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, so the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special appellate provision uses the term "judgment" without defining it, and the procedural code applies to the proceedings, the term is to be construed in the Code sense, limiting appeals to decrees and those orders made appealable by the Code.

---