Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 285 (PAT)

Jitendra Narayan Agarwal v. Rajiv Kumar Agarwal

2006-03-31

J.N.BHATT, S.N.HUSSAIN

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and considered the text and tenor of the impugned order, the factual profile, as well as, the underlined design and desideratum of the provisions of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), and, also gone through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2005 passed in I.A. No. 2691 of 2005 in First Appeal No. 475 of 1999. The provisions of Section 100A of the C.P.C., which are relevant for just decision of the matter, may be re-produced: "100A. No further appeal in certain cases.Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent 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, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge." 2. It is very, clear, from the plain perusal of the aforesaid provisions that, notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law for the time being in force in a situation where any appeal from original or appellate decree or order has been heard and decided by a Single Judge of the High Court, no further appeal is permissible in view of the amended provisions of Section 100A of the C.P.C. 3. It is in this legal settings, let it be highlighted that there is no dispute about the fact that the original defendant in a suit for partition filed a petition before the Civil Court praying therein to reject the plaint filed by the plaintiffs-appellants and the Trial Court dismissed the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., against which the original plaintiffs initiated the First Appeal No. 475 of 1999, in which the original defendant-appellant before us sought a permission to seil some portion of the properties forming part of the subject matter of the suit, which came to be rejected upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and the submissions of the parties by the learned Single Judge on 20.12.2005 as stated hereinabove and that is why the original defendant has come up in this Letters Patent Appeal questing the legality and validity of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the application for requesting to permit him to sell some portion of the properties during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Though, the learned Counsel for the appellant has fairly stated that the appeal on merits against the final decision of the learned Single Judge will not be maintainable, but, he has, strenuously, contended that an order passed on an interlocutory application in a pending appeal can be entertained in a Letters Patent Appeal by invocation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. This submission militates against the amended provisions of Section 100A as non obstante clause, which, undoubtedly, stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent of any High Court no appeal shall lie. If the Letters Patent Appeal does not lie under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the decision on merits finally how could there be an appeal against the interlocutory order. This proposition advanced before us is not supportable by law. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe to it and, accordingly, the whole contention advanced in this Letters Patent Appeal with regard to the maintainability in the face of the provision of Section 100A of the C.P.C. is not maintainable. 5. The view, which, we are inclined to render, is very much reinforced in a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Balbhadra Singh @ Balbhadra Nr. Singh vs. Ram Binod Singh & Ors., 2004(4) PLJR 879 . 6. 5. The view, which, we are inclined to render, is very much reinforced in a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Balbhadra Singh @ Balbhadra Nr. Singh vs. Ram Binod Singh & Ors., 2004(4) PLJR 879 . 6. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed at the threshold being not maintainable. However, no cost.