TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. A few facts may be stated in order to better comprehend the question posed before us. The plaintiff/appellant filed a money suit against the defendant for recovery of ₹ 7,865/7/--due from him on account of sale of grains and ₹ 1,512/9/- as interest. The defendant admitted the purchase of grain from the appellant but denied stipulation of interest. The case of the defendant was that he had borrowed ₹ 6,000/- from the plaintiff for the marriage of the grand daughters at the rate of 12 annas per hundred per month. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit. In a first appeal to the High Court, the Single Judge allowed it and reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. In the judgment it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Patna High Court probably because it does not seem to have caught the eye of any of the law reporters. Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court is analogous to Clause 15 of other Chartered High Courts, namely, Calcutta, Madras, Bombay or Clause 10 of the Allahabad High Court. There is no dispute that an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court from the judgment of a Single Judge of that Court in appeal from a judgment and decree of a court subject to the superintendence of the High Court. The only question is whether the power of a Division Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court or under the analogous provisions in the Letters Patent of other High Courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PC applies, held that no such limitation would apply because Chapter XVII limits the right of appeal from a decree passed in appeal by a Court subordinate to the High Court. They observed that the appeal to the High Court having been a first appeal and not an appeal to which Chapter XVII of the CPC applies, the parties to the appeal are entitled to question not only the law, but the findings of fact of the Judge of that Court from whose judgment or decree that appeal had been brought under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. It would be otherwise, if the appeal to that Court had been an appeal to which Chapter XVII of the old CPC applied. To the same effect are the decisions in Mulpura Venkataramayya v. Devabhaktuni Kesavanarayana: AIR1963AP44 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion that this contention is not correct. A Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a first appeal to the High Court is not exactly equivalent to a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, and therefore it cannot be held that a Letters Patent appeal of this kind can only lie on a question of law and not otherwise. The matter would have been different if the Letters Patent appeal was from a decision of a learned Single Judge in a second appeal to the High Court. In these circumstances it will be open to the High Court to review even findings of fact in a Letters Patent appeal from a first appeal heard by a learned Single Judge, though generally speaking the Letters Patent Bench would be slow to disturb c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
