Honble KOKJE, J.–The office has pointed out defect in this appeal that the special appeal has been filed against an order dated 29.4.97, which has been passed on Misc. Application. Therefore, the special appeal is not maintainable under clause 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. (2). We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on maintainability ofappeal. He submitted that the order, challenged in appeal, falls in the category of `judgment. He has also cited the decision of Supreme Court in Asrumati Debi vs. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot and others (1); a decision of Rajasthan High Court in Sampat Raj vs. Ladu Ram and others (2); and the decision of Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and another (3). (3). We find that the case in hand is distinguishable from the cases cited and the decisions do not support maintainability of this appeal. This appeal is preferred against the order rejecting an application filed under Order 45 Rule 13 C.P.C., by which the appellant prayed for stay of execution proceeding till 31st July, 1997 to enable them to file the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and toobtain stay order in that appeal. The rejection of such an application can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a `Judgment. The test for determining whether any order is judgment or not, is laid down in case of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), the relevant portion is reproduced hereunder : ``That the Trial Judge being a senior Court with vast experience of various branches of law occupying a very high status should be trusted to pass discretionary or interlocutory orders with due regard to the well settled principles of civil justice. Thus, any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the Trial Judge in the course of the suit which may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice one party or the other cannot be treated as a judgment; otherwise the appellate Court (Division Bench) will be flooded with appeals from all kinds of orders passed by the Trial Judge. The courts must give sufficient allowance to the Trial Judge and raise a presumption that any discretionary order which he passes must be presumed to be correct unless it is ex facie legally erroneous or causes grave and substantial injustice. The courts must give sufficient allowance to the Trial Judge and raise a presumption that any discretionary order which he passes must be presumed to be correct unless it is ex facie legally erroneous or causes grave and substantial injustice. That the interlocutory order in order to be a judgment must contained the traits and trappings of finality either when the order decides the questions in controversy in an ancillary proceedings or in the suit itself or in a part of the proceedings. (4). Applying the aforesaid test, we do not find that an order refusing for stay the execution of a decree to enable the aggrieved party to approach the SupremeCourt to obtain stay order therefrom, cannot be said to be a `judgment. This special appeal, is therefore, not maintainable and the same is dismissed as such.