Clause 15 judgment test excludes mere interlocutory orders; refusal to frame additional issues was not appealable.

An order is a "judgment" under Clause 15 only if it finally disposes of a suit, proceeding, or distinct ancillary matter so far as the court is concerned; a mere interlocutory step taken in aid of final adjudication is not appealable. Refusal to frame additional issues did not terminate the suit or determine any substantive right or liability, and was only an interlocutory direction in the course of the proceedings. It was therefore not a judgment within Clause 15, and no appeal lay from it.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order dismissing an application for additional issues on the Original Side is a "judgment" within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent so as to be appealable.

Analysis: The Court held that the word "judgment" in Clause 15 is not confined to final determinations only, but extends to preliminary or interlocutory judgments which finally dispose of a suit, proceeding, or distinct ancillary matter so far as the Court is concerned. A mere interlocutory order, or a step taken in aid of obtaining a final adjudication, is not a judgment. Applying that distinction, the refusal to frame additional issues did not terminate the suit or decide any substantive right or liability; it was only an interlocutory direction in the course of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The order was not a judgment within Clause 15 and no appeal lay from it.

---