Judgment 1. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge in M.A. No. 549/2000 whereby the appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2000 passed in Claim Case No. 84/99 has been dismissed. 2. The office has pointed out that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the matter was heard on the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The matter relates to Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal granted interim compensation to the claimant. Against the said order of the Tribunal, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 549/2000 was filed before this Court which was heard by a learned Single Judge who dismissed the appeal vide the order impugned. The Letters Patent Appeal has been provided under Clause 10 Appendix E of the Patna High Court Rules and it says that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Patna from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order) made in exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. ln the instant case against the judgment and order of the Tribunal the Miscellaneous appeal was decided by a Single Judge of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction which has been challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal. It is relevant to mention herein that by amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100A has been brought with effect from 1.7.2002 which reads as follows; No further appeal in certain cases.Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any 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. 4. 4. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that it is a non-obstante clause and it says when an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is decided by a Single Judge, no further appeal shall lie against the said judgment or order passed by learned Single Judge. 5. The vires of the aforesaid provision was challenged before the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu V/s. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 189 and the Apex Court held that the provision of Section 100A CPC is valid and intra vires. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, drew our attention to a decision in the case of Sharda Prasad Gond V/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2004(3) PLJR 560 to show that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. The relevant portion i.e. Para 6 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow: While parting with this appeal, we may mention that in spite of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure and insertion of Section 100A, appeal is maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subal Paul V/s. Malina Paul, reported in 2003(3) PLJR 1 (SC). 6. From the judgment in the case of Sharda Prasad Gond (supra) it appears that a Division Bench of this Court on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subal Paul vs. Malina Paul (supra) has held that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. However, the same Division Bench in the case of Balbhadra Singh alias Balbhadra Narain Singh V/s. Ram Binod Singh & Ors., 2004(4) PLJR 879 taking into consideration the case of Subal Paul (supra) has held that Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Paragraph 12 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow: "In Subal Pauls case (supra), the question for consideration was as to whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the judgment of a [earned Single Judge of the High Court filed under Section 299 of the Act. In other words, the question, which is involved in the instant appeal, was subject matter of consideration before a Bench consisting of three Hon ble Judges. It appears that the said case related to the period prior to insertion of Section 100A of the Code. In other words, the question, which is involved in the instant appeal, was subject matter of consideration before a Bench consisting of three Hon ble Judges. It appears that the said case related to the period prior to insertion of Section 100A of the Code. The maintainability matter was raised with reference to the provision of Section 104 of the Code, according to which, an appeal is provided with regard to certain orders specified therein and it was provided in sub-section (2) thereof that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in an appeal under this section. In that case, the contention of the appellant was that the appeal before the High Court would be treated to be an appeal under section 104 of the Code, read with Order XLIII and as such second appeal was barred and, accordingly, the appeal under the Letters Patent was also barred." 7. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the said judgment and order was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 4211/2005 which was dismissed on 7.3.2005. 8. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, it is obvious that there were two conflicting judgments of the same Division Bench, however, the later judgment i.e. in the case of Balbhadra Narain Singh (supra), wherein it was held that LPA is not maintainable, which was challenged before the Supreme Court, was upheld. 9. Thus, we find that the Letters Patent Appeal against the appellate judgment and order of the Single Judge is not maintainable. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.