Per Mansoor J’:;— 1. The point which arises for consideration in this Reference has its genesis to order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.05.2009, which may be noticed as follows: “From a reading of section 100-A of the code of Civil Procedure introduced with effect from August 15, 1983, it appears that no appeal would lie notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent from the judgement or order passed by the learned Single Judge on an appeal preferred from an appellate decree or order and not from the original decree or order. However, while considering the provisions contained in 100-A of the Code a Division Bench of this Court has observed that if the judgement has been rendered in the first appeal, then no further appeal shall lie. In view of the plain words used in Section 100-A of the Code, we are not in a position to accept the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Mrs. Anita Kumari v. Muneer Ahmad and others reported in 1995 SLJ 268. The matter, therefore, needs to be referred to the Full Court. We would, therefore, refer the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for the purpose of the constitution of the Full Bench. We accordingly do so. Having had noticed the fact that the judgement and decree impugned had been passed without notice to the appellants before us, we stay operation of the said judgement and decree appealed against as well as anything done subsequent thereto on the strength thereof until expressly revoked by this Court.” 2. From perusal of the aforesaid reproduction, it reveals that the Division Bench of this Court, while noticing judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case Mrs. Anita Kumari v. Muneer Ahmad and others (1995 SLJ 268), came to the conclusion that the judgement rendered is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 100-A of Civil Procedure Code which was introduced with effect from August 15, 1983, and held that the Letters Patent Appeal/Appeal is barred from the decree or order passed by learned Single Judge on an appeal preferred from an appellate decree or order and not from the original decree or order. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Lord Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench for determination of that point and that is how this Reference is before us. Brief resume of case: 3. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Lord Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench for determination of that point and that is how this Reference is before us. Brief resume of case: 3. Ghulam Mohammad Matoo – Respondent No. 1 herein, questioned the ex-parte judgement and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Srinagar, by medium of CIMA No. 105/1999, which came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgement and decree dated 1st of November, 2004. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants, Rafiqa and others, questioned the said judgement by medium of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 65/2006) which came up for consideration on 25th of May, 2009. Mr. GA Lone, appearing counsel for the respondents, disputed the maintainability of the appeal in view of the judgement handed down by a Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Anita Kumari v. Muneer Ahmad and others (1995 SLJ 268). It is apt to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the judgement, which read as under: “4. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his case is that if the Letters patent provisions as found in the legislation of this state makes it convenient for the litigant public to invoke such letters patent provisions to present the second appeal, this court may have to consider the feasibility of entertaining such appeal. 5. We are afraid, it is not possible to accept this contention in as much as the opening sentence of the section extracted above patently makes it clear that this section is overriding provision which lays down that even in respect of Letters patent of the High Court of J&K providing any such law shall be taken as to abide by the intention of Section 100 A. In that view of the matter this provision of the Letters patent cannot override the provisions of Section 100A. Instead, regard being had to the provisions of section 100A and the intention that could be gathered from the language employed therein, it is made clear that a civil second appeal cannot be entertained as against the judgement and decree passed by a learned single Judge in a civil Ist appeal. Therefore, we have no option but to hold that this appeal as brought before this Court is not maintainable. In that view of the matter the application as presented by way of CMP is not maintainable. Therefore, we have no option but to hold that this appeal as brought before this Court is not maintainable. In that view of the matter the application as presented by way of CMP is not maintainable. In view of the foregoing we hold that the appeal is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the CMP also shall stand disposed of.” 4. The reference before us is in terms of Rule 33 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999, which may be noticed: “33. Reference to a larger Bench: The Chief Justice may constitute a bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a bench hearing the case. In the later event the decision of the such bench on the question so formulated shall be returned to the bench hearing the case and that bench shall follow that decision on such question and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any, arising therein: Provided that whenever in any case a Division Bench differs from any other Division Bench of the Court on a point of law or usage having the force of law such case or point shall be referred for decision by a larger bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice.” 5. The referred question in the case on hand is as to whether the judgement of the Division Bench passed in LPA No. 65/2006 on 25th of May, 2009 is correct or the view taken by the Division Bench in the aforementioned LPA. For the sake of facility, it is apposite to reproduce Section 100-A of the Civil Procedure Code, which reads: “[100-A. 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 appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgement, decision or order of such single Judge in such appeal or from any decree passed in such appeal.]” 6. From the plain reading of the said proviso, it becomes crystal clear that no appeal would lie notwithstanding any Letters Patent from the decree or order passed by a learned Single Judge on an appeal preferred from an appellate decree or order. Thus appeal is not barred from the judgement/decree or order passed by learned Single Judge in a Civil First Appeal preferred against the original decree or order. 7. It appears from perusal of the record that the respondent has preferred a review petition which came to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved he questioned the order dated 25th of May, 2009 and rejection of review petition by medium of SLP which also came to be dismissed by apex Court. However, the apex Court had made a request to the High Court to dispose of the reference expeditiously and it has also been observed by apex Court that it will be open for the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) to urge all the contentions in the pending LPA. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken vide order dated 25.05.2009 is well founded and in conformity with law. Consequently, we hold that the judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Anita Kumari v. Muneer Ahmad and others (1995 SLJ 268) is not the correct view and overruled accordingly. 9. Mr. Lone argued that during the pendency of Letters Patent Appeal Code of Civil Procedure has undergone a sea change by way of amendment under the provisions contained in Section 100-A and now appeal from the decree or order passed by learned Single Judge in a Civil First appeal preferred against the original decree or order is also barred. He further stated that effect of amendment is retrospective and not prospective. The argument advanced by Mr. Lone is beyond the terms of reference and we are loath to consider it, for, we have only to consider the question referred to us in terms of Rule 33 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 and not otherwise. Nevertheless, argument of Mr. Lone has been taken care of by the apex Court by giving him liberty to urge all the contentions in the pending LPA. The reference is answered accordingly. 10. Nevertheless, argument of Mr. Lone has been taken care of by the apex Court by giving him liberty to urge all the contentions in the pending LPA. The reference is answered accordingly. 10. The Registrar Judicial shall list the main LPA for consideration before the Division Bench in the next available regular cause list, of course, subject to the orders from the Lord Chief Justice.