Judgment :- 1. This is an application for a declaration that the case is a fit one for appeal to a Division Bench. The Second Appeal was decided by Mr. Justice K.S. Govinda Pillai on 30th August 1954. This application was filed on 1.12.1954, and it was dismissed by the same judge on 17.1.1955 for not curing the defects. An application for restoration was made and it was allowed, but by that time the learned judge who decided the case had retired from service. As there are other similar applications in respect of cases decided by the same judge and as the question whether any other judge can declare whether such cases are fit for appeal has to be decided, this application was referred to a Division Bench. 2. The question for decision is whether any single judge of the High Court is competent to declare that a case decided by another judge is a fit one for appeal. S.21 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act deals with powers of Division Benches of two Judges. Cl.(1) provides as follows: "To hear and decide appeals against orders passed by a single judge under Sub-cl. (A) of Cl. (4) of S.20; to hear and decide appeals against judgments passed by a single judge under Sub-cl. (C) of Cl. (4) of S.20 where the judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal and to hear and decide applications or appeals or other proceedings that a single judge may refer under S.20." 3. It is clear from this clause that a Division Bench can hear and decide appeals against judgments passed by a single judge under Sub-cl. (C) of Clause.4 of S.20, only where the judge who passed the judgment makes the necessary declaration. This construction might deprive parties of a right of appeal in cases where the judge who passed the judgment is not available to deal with such applications. It has to be remembered that it is only a restricted right of appeal that has been conferred by the section referred to above. It is also not clear how any hardship can result because it is open for the aggrieved party to make a motion for the necessary declaration as soon as the judgment is pronounced. It has to be remembered that it is only a restricted right of appeal that has been conferred by the section referred to above. It is also not clear how any hardship can result because it is open for the aggrieved party to make a motion for the necessary declaration as soon as the judgment is pronounced. Even if any hardship is likely to result in some cases, that is hardly a relevant consideration in construing this Section. There is no point in the argument that the power to make the declaration is not expressly included among the powers of a single judge mentioned in S.20 of the Act and that the provision regarding such appeals is included in the section dealing with powers of Division Benches. We have no hesitation in holding that the judge who passed the judgment alone is competent to declare that the case is a fit one for appeal to a Division Bench. C.M.P. No. 500 is therefore dismissed. Dismisssed.