JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Heard on the question of maintainability and also on merits. 2. The order under challenge has been passed by learned Single Judge in an application filed with a prayer to amend the pleadings in view of subsequent developments having taken place in the matter. As a matter of fact, notification dated 12.2.2019 (Annexure P-29) to the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC registered as CMP No. 9113 of 2019 (in CWP No. 2785 of 2016) qua specification of dress to be provided to the members of the police force in the State of Himachal Pradesh came to be issued on 12.2.2019 during the pendency of the writ petition. In the writ petition, though similar notification dated 3.6.2013 Annexure P-9 is under challenge, however, in view of the subsequent notification dated 12.2.2019 on the same subject matter came to be issued during the pendency of the writ petition, the application for amendment in the writ petition came to be filed to place the same on record of the writ petition and also to assail its legality and validity. 3. Learned Single Judge while interpreting the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and observing that the notification has been issued during the pendency of the writ petition has concluded that for want of pleadings as to how the same is bad in law and the pleadings by way of proposed amendment sought to be incorporated in the writ petition has dismissed the application on the grounds inter alia that the same is not in conformity with the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It has further been observed that the application is cryptic also. The application, therefore, has been dismissed vide order under challenge in this appeal. 4. First coming to the question of maintainability of the appeal, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in titled Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kanta and Another, (1981) 4 SCC 8 . In para 120 of this judgment, the interlocutory orders which have to be treated as judgments for the purpose of intra court appeal have been discussed. An order granting leave to amend the plaint by introducing a new cause of action is also included as one of such examples. In para 120 of this judgment, the interlocutory orders which have to be treated as judgments for the purpose of intra court appeal have been discussed. An order granting leave to amend the plaint by introducing a new cause of action is also included as one of such examples. The order under challenge in that case was passed in an application for appointment of receiver and grant of ad-interim injunction which was declined by learned trial Judge. The appeal within the meaning of the Letters Patent against such order was held to be maintainable. It has also been observed by the Apex court that the illustrations noted in the judgment are few. There may be other illustrations where an order can be stated to be a judgment for the purpose of Letters Patent and as such left it open to the Court seized of the matter to decide the same in the light of the tests, observations and principles enunciated in the judgment supra. 5. The apex Court while placing reliance on the judgment in Shah Babulal Khimji's case supra has again held in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2018) 11 SCC 722 as under: "8. First contention is that the order of Single Judge was not a judgment finally affecting the rights of the parties and the non-maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal. Clause 15 of Letters Patent provides for intra-court appeals against the judgment of Single Judge of the High Court. The right of the Letters Patent Appeal to the High Court depends upon whether or not the decision of the Single Judge appealed from affects the merits of the question between the parties and their valuable rights. Whether an order is a judgment or an interlocutory order depends upon whether or not, it has finally decided the rights of the parties and whether it has the effect of affecting the rights of the parties. For an order to be a judgment, it is not always necessary that it should put an end to the controversy or terminate the suit. An interlocutory order determining the rights of the parties in one way or other is also a judgment." 6. In the case in hand the order decides the fate of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC finally. An interlocutory order determining the rights of the parties in one way or other is also a judgment." 6. In the case in hand the order decides the fate of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC finally. The same in our considered opinion is a judgment within the meaning of clause-10 of Letters Patent and also the law laid down by the apex Court in Shah Babulal Khimji as well as Life Insurance Corporation of India's cases (supra). The appeal, as such, is maintainable. 7. Now if coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, notification dated 12.2.2019 sought to be challenged by way of amendment came to be issued by the respondent-State during the pendency of the writ petition. The same qua specification of the caps to be provided to the members of non-gazetted police officers (Grade-I) and (Grade-II) officials is identical to that in the earlier notification dated 3.6.2013 (Annexure P-9) to the writ petition. It has been categorically mentioned in the application that the appellant-writ petitioner is aggrieved by the notification dated 12.2.2019. The appellant-writ petitioner has rightly submitted in the application that it was not possible to challenge the same earlier at the time of filing the writ petition because the same came to be issued during the pendency thereof. Being so, by way of amendment the following additional prayer has been sought to be added: "14. (a)(i) that by way of the present writ petition, the notification dated 12.2.2019 and the subsequent changes and its effect, tender process are also under challenge which has been annexed as Annexure P-29 and consequently the relief clause may also be allowed to be amended praying for quashing and setting aside Annexure P-29 also." 8. Annexed to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was the amended writ petition. We fail to understand as to how the application is cryptic as the earlier notification Annexure P-9 identical in nature is under challenge on several grounds in the writ petition. Annexed to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was the amended writ petition. We fail to understand as to how the application is cryptic as the earlier notification Annexure P-9 identical in nature is under challenge on several grounds in the writ petition. No other and further grounds were required to be set out in the application and the statement that the appellant-petitioner had no occasion to challenge the notification dated 12.2.2019 at the time of filing the writ petition and that it is essentially required to challenge the notification for adjudication of the controversy effectively and judiciously and also to avoid any technical defect in the record at some later stage are sufficient to consider the application and pass appropriate orders. 9. The application though could have been remanded to learned Single Judge for fresh decision, however, the Apex Court in Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission and Another in Civil Appeal Nos. 7400-7401 of 2018 decided on July 31, 2018 has deprecated such practice and rather held that the Division Bench seized of the Letters Patent Appeal should itself decide the matter. This judgment reads as follows: "3. We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power of the High Court but that does not mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to consider the appeals on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead or remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge." Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 10. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to consider the appeals on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead or remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge." Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 10. There was no occasion to the appellant-petitioner to have challenged the notification dated 12.2.2019 at the time of filing the writ petition. The notification was issued on 12.2.2019 and the application was filed in the month of September, 2019 when came to the notice of the appellant-petitioner. 11. As noticed at the outset, the contents of notification are at par the earlier notification (Annexure P-9) which is under challenge in the writ petition. In the event of the appellant- petitioner is not permitted to amend the pleadings and challenge the subsequent notification dated 12.2.2019 on the same subject matter of dispute, there cannot be effective and complete adjudication of the points in issue in the writ petition. On the other hand, the likelihood of occurring of a technical defect during the course of further proceedings in the writ petition at some later stage cannot be ruled out. As noticed supra, the petitioner had no occasion to challenge the notification Annexure P-29 to the application at the time of filing the writ petition. Therefore, the amendment in the writ petition has rightly been sought during the pendency thereof in this Court. The proposed amendment on the other hand is essentially required to determine the real controversy between the parties. The application, therefore, should have been allowed by learned Single Judge and the appellant-petitioner permitted to amend the writ petition. 12. For all the reasons hereinabove, the order under challenge in this appeal is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the application for amendment in the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner is also allowed. The amended writ petition is already on record. Learned Single Judge, therefore, to proceed further in the matter from the stage of filing reply etc. thereto by the respondent-State. The appeal is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of so also the pending applications, if any.