Review of writ orders and appellate reviewability: statutory review confined to special proceedings, not Article 226 jurisdiction.

An order refusing review of a writ decision was treated as a "judgment" because it conclusively affected substantive rights and was therefore appealable under the Letters Patent and High Court Rules. Section 11 of U.P. Act XIV of 1956 was held inapplicable to a High Court order under Article 226, since the provision was confined to proceedings under the special agricultural income-tax statute and could not be extended to constitutional writ proceedings. The review application also could not be converted at a late stage into one under Order XLVII CPC because that would raise unresolved questions of limitation, maintainability, and the reviewability of writ orders under the Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of a single judge refusing review was a "judgment" appealable under the Letters Patent and the High Court Rules; (ii) whether section 11 of U.P. Act XIV of 1956 applied to an order made by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; (iii) whether the review application could be treated as one under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether an order of a single judge refusing review was a "judgment" appealable under the Letters Patent and the High Court Rules.

Analysis: The expression "judgment" was examined with reference to the differing High Court authorities. An order is a judgment if it conclusively determines a right or liability, even if it is interlocutory, and an order refusing review of a writ decision affected the parties' substantive rights because the statute itself conferred a fresh right to seek review of the earlier order.

Conclusion: The order refusing review was a "judgment" and an appeal lay to the Division Bench. This issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether section 11 of U.P. Act XIV of 1956 applied to an order made by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The language of section 11 was confined to proceedings under the principal agricultural income-tax Act. A petition under Article 226 is an original constitutional proceeding, not a proceeding under the taxing statute, and the section could not be expanded by construction. Applying it to a writ order would also create conflict with Article 226 by subjecting the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to a mandatory legislative command.

Conclusion: Section 11 did not apply to the High Court's order under Article 226, and the appellants had no statutory right of review under that provision. This issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the review application could be treated as one under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The plea was raised belatedly and would have introduced several unresolved questions concerning limitation, maintainability, and the reviewability of a writ order under the Code. In those circumstances, the application could not be converted into one under Order XLVII at that late stage.

Conclusion: The application could not be treated as one under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. This issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the maintainability point but failed on the merits, and the denial of review was upheld, leaving the appellants without relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory review provision confined to proceedings under a special Act cannot be extended to a High Court order made in exercise of its original constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226, especially where such extension would conflict with the constitutional scheme.

---