Appellate route for civil suits on the High Court's original side turns on jurisdiction, not incidental share register relief.

A civil suit on the High Court's ordinary original civil side is treated differently from proceedings in the inherited jurisdiction for purposes of appeal: judgments in the former are appealable only as provided by section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, while judgments in the latter may fall under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The dispute over the legality of a trust, rectification of the register of members, and the validity of section 187B of the Companies Act, 1956 was characterised as raising ordinary civil law issues rather than a company petition. Section 155 of the Companies Act was noted to provide only a summary inquiry and not to govern a dispute where title to shares and the trust's legality are directly in issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal against the single judge's order in a suit instituted on the ordinary original civil side of the High Court was maintainable under clause 10 of the Letters Patent or only under section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

Analysis: The proceeding before the single judge was held to be a civil suit entertained in exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction under section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, and not a proceeding under the jurisdiction continued by section 5(1). The distinction between the two jurisdictions was treated as decisive because appeals from judgments in the inherited jurisdiction lie under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, whereas appeals from judgments in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction lie only as provided by section 10(1) of the Act. The challenge to the trust, the prayer for rectification of the register, and the attack on section 187B of the Companies Act, 1956 were held to arise from ordinary civil law questions and not from a company petition under the Companies Act. Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 was said to confer only a summary inquiry and not to govern a dispute where the very title to shares and the legality of the trust were questioned.

Conclusion: The appeal was held not maintainable under clause 10 of the Letters Patent and not entertainable under section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 on the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to the legality of a trust and to the vires of the provision under which a trustee acts, when raised in a civil suit on the High Court's ordinary original civil side, is not converted into a company petition merely because rectification of the register of members is also sought incidentally; the proper appellate route depends on the jurisdiction in which the single judge acted.

---