ORDER : J.S. Verma, J. 1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent was placed before us being listed for hearing arguments on the question of admission. Shri P.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal should be admitted as of right by the Additional Registrar and that there is no jurisdiction available to the Division Bench to hear arguments on merits since it has no power to dismiss it in motion. It is this question which is being disposed of by this order. 2. Shri Saxena relies on rule 3 contained in Chapter v relating to "procedure after presentation" in the High Court Rules and Orders and argues that the provision under Order 41, rule It of the Code of Civil Procedure permitting a dismissal of the appeal at this stage in the motion hearing is superseded in the case of all appeals filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. It may be mentioned that this appeal against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court has been filed without leave of the learned single Judge since no such leave is required in this case. 3. Rule 3 in Chapter v of the High Court Rules and Orders which is the sheet anchor of Shri Saxena's argument is as under: -- 3. First appeals, appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, and reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Indian income Tax Act, if found in order, shall be submitted to the Registrar for an order for the issue of notice for hearing parlies. In this connection reference may also be made to Chapter II of the High Court Rules and Orders relating to powers of the Additional Registrar and Deputy Registrar wherein the relevant rules are as follows:-- 1. The following duties and powers in relation to civil and criminal proceedings are, in addition to powers conferred upon him by other rules delegated to the Additional Registrar:-- (i)... ... ... (ii)... ... ... (iii) To admit an appeal under clause 10 of Letters Patent where leave is granted by Single Judge and to order issue of notices to the respondents. 2. The Additional Registrar may refer any of the matters mentioned in rule 1 to the Court for orders. ... ... (ii)... ... ... (iii) To admit an appeal under clause 10 of Letters Patent where leave is granted by Single Judge and to order issue of notices to the respondents. 2. The Additional Registrar may refer any of the matters mentioned in rule 1 to the Court for orders. No other provision in the High Court Rules and Orders relevant for deciding this question has been pointed out to us. From Rule 1 (iii) of Chapter II quoted above, it is clear that the power given to the Additional Registrar to admit an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent without referring to the Court is limited only to such of those appeals where leave is granted by the Single Judge. This power of admission by the Additional Registrar himself does not extend to other appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, like the present, which are maintainable without leave of the single Judge, Rule 2 in Chapter II also enables the Additional Registrar to refer any of the matters mentioned in rule 1 of that chapter to the Court for orders. It is, therefore clear that even in respect of matters over which power is delegated to the Additional Registrar in rule 1 the Court's jurisdiction to pass suitable orders, is not taken away on a reference made to it by the Additional Registrar. Moreover, the specific enumeration of specified powers of the Additional Registrar in rule 1 shows that the matters not specified in rule 1 or elsewhere as a power delegated to the Additional Registrar, do not fall within the ambit, of his power. There can be no dispute that rule 1 (iii) in Chapter II does not give the Additional Registrar power to admit an appeal like the present but on the contrary it limits that power only to the Letters Patent Appeals filed with the leave of the single Judge. Faced with this difficulty Shri Saxena argues that the latter part of clause (iii) of rule 1 in Chapter II is a surplusage and rule 3 in Chapter v. gives that power to the Additional Registrar. It may also be added that rule 4 of Chapter v. reauires the Additional Registrar to fix a date for hearing by an appropriate bench for motion hearing in cases other than those dealt with under rule 3 of that Chapter. 4. It may also be added that rule 4 of Chapter v. reauires the Additional Registrar to fix a date for hearing by an appropriate bench for motion hearing in cases other than those dealt with under rule 3 of that Chapter. 4. No doubt Rule 3 of Chapter V is not happily worded on account of which this argument has arisen. Rule 3 says only "appeals" under clause 10 of the Letters Patent" and not "appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent where leave is granted by a single Judge", the latter expression being used in Rule 1 (iii) in Chapter 2. However, we have no doubt that the principle of harmonious construction requires that Rule 3 in Chapter v. should be so read as to include within its ambit only those appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent where the leave is granted by single Judge. It is in this manner that rule 1 in Chapter If and Rule 3 in Chapter v. can be given full effect to. The opposite view canvassed by Shri Saxena will result in rendering the latter part of rule 1 (iii) in Chapter II a surplusage as he contends and not only that, it will lead to the further result of bypassing the limitation specifically imposed while delegating the authority to the Additional Registrar. Moreover, rule 1 in Chapter II deals expressly with the powers of the Additional Registrar while Rule 3 in Chapter v. relates only to the procedure after presentation. In deciding a question relating to the power of the Additional Registrar, it is the provisions in Chapter II which are of greater significance as compared to those in Chapter v. and then Rule 2 in Chapter II indicates that the Court's power remains notwithstanding the delegation made in rule 1 and can be exercised on a reference made by the Registrar. 5. Thus on a consideration of all the relevant provisions contained in High Court Rules and Orders, it must be held that a Letters Patent Appeal filed without leave of the single Judge has to be placed before the appropriate motion bench for admission and the Additional Registrar has no power to admit the same himself without referring it to the Court. We are also given to under stand that this is the long standing practice at least in the main seat of the High Court at Jabalpur. 6. Shri Saxena referred to us a decision in Jagdish Chandra v. Chandra Mohan A I R 1920 Pat. 509. In that case it was held that the bench before which appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent were placed has jurisdiction to deal with them in accordance with Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shri Saxena says that this was so because according to the rules of the Patna High Court this was permissible. We have already held that the rules of this Court also lead to the same result. Shri Saxena relied on M/S. Golcha Investment (P.) Ltd. v. Shanti Chandra Bafna AIR 1970 SC 1350 . In that decision the relevant rule framed by the Bombay High Court prescribed the class of cases which were to be placed before a Bench of the High Court for admission. While construing that rule, the Supreme Court held that appeals other than those mentioned in that rule were not to be placed for admission before the Court. In that view, an appeal not required to be placed before the Bench, being dismissed in motion hearing, it was held that the summary dismissal of the appeal was erroneous being outside the scope of this rule. In our opinion, this decision of the Supreme Court does not support Shri Saxena's argument and on the contrary it supports the construction made by us of clause (iii) of rule 1 of Chapter II. 6. Consequently, the argument of Shri Saxena that this appeal has to be admitted for final hearing as of right by the Additional Registrar and that we have do jurisdiction to hear it for admission in accordance with Order 41, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected. The appeal shall now be listed for hearing arguments on the question of admission.