JUDGMENT U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. A Division Bench which dealt with these cases referred the following question to a larger Bench: Whether an appeal from an appellate order passed in an appeal under any enactment by a single Judge does not lie to the Division Bench under the Letters Patent? Or., whether appeals from appellate orders of a single Judge under such enactments only which specifically bar any further appeal shall not lie before the Division Bench under the Letters Patent? 2. This reference was made initially in L.P.A. No. 2 of 1984 and in other cases an order was passed stating that this case is also referred to a larger Bench for the reasons stated in L.P.A. No, 2 of 1984, a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a learned single Judge in an appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the order passed today by us, we have held that the question referred is not proper and reformulated the question and answered the question in the negative upholding the non-maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The present batch of Letters Patent Appeals is directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge, disposing of the appeals filed against awards passed by the various M.A.C. Tribunals under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The question referred in these cases also is inappropriate. We reformulate the question as follows: Whether a Letters Patent Appeal lies against a judgment/order passed by the learned single Judge disposing of an appeal against the appellate award passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal? 4. This question has already been considered by answering the reference in favour of the maintainability of the appeal by a Full Bench of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saraswati Bai 1995 ACJ 273 (MP), We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the maintainability of appeal and dispose of the reference. Reference answered accordingly.