TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The facts have been mentioned in the impugned judgment of the High Court and hence we are not repeating the same here. 5. The short question in the case is whether a Letters Patent Appeal (for short `LPA') is maintainable before the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Dated 6.8.2008. Since there was conflict of opinion between different Division Benches of the High Court on the point whether the LPA was maintainable in view of the amendment of Section 100A CPC the Full Bench was constituted, and by the impugned judgment it was held that the LPA was not maintainable in view of Section 100-A CPC. 6. It may be mentioned that the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, (a) Where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided. (b) Where any writ, direction or order is issued or made on an application under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, decision or order of such single Judge. This amendment was however not given effect to. Again Section 100-A of the Code was amended by Act 22 of 2002 and the amended Section reads as follows:- Section 100-A : No further appeal in certain cases : Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-A C.P.C. has been upheld by the decision of this Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 189. 12. The Full Benches of the Andhra Pradesh High Court vide Gandla Pannala Bhulaxmi vs. Managing Director, APSRTC Anr. AIR 2003 AP 458, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxminarayan vs. Shivlal Gujar Ors. AIR 2003 MP 49, and of Kerala High Court in Kesava Pillai Sreedharan Pillai vs. State of Kerala Ors. AIR 2004 Ker 111 have held that after the amendment of Section 100-A in 2002 no litigant can have a substantive right for a further appeal against the judgment or order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court passed in an appeal. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid decisions. 13. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at first glance this argument may appear plausible but when we go deeper into it, we will realize that it has no merit. 18. It would be strange to hold that while two appeals will be maintainable against interlocutory orders of a District Judge, only one appeal will be maintainable against a final judgment of the District Judge. 19. It may be noted that there seems to be some apparent contradiction in Section 100-A as amended in 2002. While in one part of Section 100-A it is stated where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court , in the following part it is stated no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge . Thus while one part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not much can be made out of it once we understand the purpose of Section 100A. 23. For the reasons given above we are of the opinion that the Full Bench of the High Court has taken a correct view. Thus there is no force in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. No costs. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9323-9324 OF 2010 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13684-85 of 2009] 24. Leave granted. 25. These appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2008 in first appeal from order no.386 of 2007 of the Orissa High Court. The appeal before the learned Single Judge arose out of an interlocutory order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III in a suit which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
