JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the rejection of appeal against order being Appeal No. 905 of 1981. It is not necessary to give detailed facts of the present appeal. 2. The plaintiff-appellants herein filed a Suit No. 6279 of 1981 in the City Civil Court at Bombay for obtaining injunction against the defendants. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiffs applied for interim injunction. That prayer for interim injunction was rejected by the City Civil Court at Bombay. Against the rejection of that order, the plaintiffs filed an appeal against order and that appeal against order was dismissed on November 26, 1981. It is this order which is being challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants. 3. At the time of admission, a preliminary objection is taken that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. In all such matters, which came before us prior to this one, we had held, so by our orders because, in some matters the Counsel conceded that the appeals are not maintainable. 4. In this appeal, Mr. Kapadia, the Learned Counsel, who appears for the appellants, has addressed the arguments in support of the case that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. Mr. Kapadia argues that Clause 16 of the Letters Patent creates a forum and Clause 16 provides an appeal against the order passed by the Single Judge and it is independent of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Kapadia conceded that there are no separate rules governing the Letters Patent Appeals in regard to the hearing and procedure. It is contended by Mr. Kapadia that the Letters Patent is a special law and being a special law it does not affect by the provisions of section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure or it is not controlled by section 104 of the Code. 5. The preliminary objection is formulated on the basis that section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits such an appeal. Section 104(2) reads thus: "104(2).---No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section". It is undisputed that the present appeal is certainly an appeal filed against the order under section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. Section 104(2) reads thus: "104(2).---No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section". It is undisputed that the present appeal is certainly an appeal filed against the order under section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeals are governed by three kinds of provisions only, the first kind of provision is under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e. Appeal from original decree; the second provision of appeal i.e. Second Appeal against the appellate decree under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the third under section 104 of the Code, which governs the appeal against the order. 6. It is not disputed by Mr. Kapadia that this appeal, which was filed before the Single Judge, is governed by section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the same was directed against the order of dismissal of Notice of Motion at the stage of asking interim injunction. It is certainly governed by the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. 7. As far as Clause 16 of the Letters Patent is concerned, in our opinion, the provisions of section 104 are attracted and it is applicable to the Letters Patent Appeals also. Because the Letters Patent Appeals cannot be said to be an exception and cannot override the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Under Clause 37 of the Letters Patent it is provided that the Letters Patent will be guided by Code of Civil Procedure, while making the rules by the High Court and can be altered by the component legislature. In this connection, it may be noted that right of appeal is not inherent right of the aggrieved party. It is the creature of statute and if it can be taken away by statue, no party can claim that this remedy must be available to the party. Right of appeal is not attached to the litigation unless it is provided by law. There must be a clear authority for filing appeal and if the authority is against filing the appeal that legal provision is also to be respected and obeyed. Section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Producer clearly bars an appeal. Right of appeal is not attached to the litigation unless it is provided by law. There must be a clear authority for filing appeal and if the authority is against filing the appeal that legal provision is also to be respected and obeyed. Section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Producer clearly bars an appeal. The plain reading of section 104(2) of the Code that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section is significant. Section is prohibitive and the provisions of prohibitive section under the general principles of interpretation of statue must be construed strictly. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the appeal filed under section 104 of the Code before the Single Judge of the High Court being an appeal the order and the order passed by the Single Judge in that appeal being an order passed in appeal governed by section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure is certainly prohibited under the provisions of section 104(2) of the Code. 9. In this connection a reference could be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in (Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and another)1, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1786. In this judgement, the Supreme Court has specifically dealt with the provisions and it is held that : "There is no inconsistency between section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 and the appeals under the Letters Patent and there is nothing to show that the Letters Patent in any way excludes or overrides the application of section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 or to show that these provisions would not apply to internal appeals within the High Court." In view of those observations of the Supreme Court, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants in the form of Letters Patent is not maintainable and the same will have to be dismissed. 10. At this stage, a request for leave to appeal to Supreme Court was made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants. Since we are deciding this matter on the strength of the judgement of the Supreme Court, the request for leave to appeal is rejected and leave refused. 11. However, at the request of the appellants-plaintiffs, status quo to be maintain as for a period of one month from today. 12. Since we are deciding this matter on the strength of the judgement of the Supreme Court, the request for leave to appeal is rejected and leave refused. 11. However, at the request of the appellants-plaintiffs, status quo to be maintain as for a period of one month from today. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -----