Judgment : N. Paul Vasantha kumar, C.J. 1. This letters patent appeal is filed against the order made in A.A. No.51/1999 by the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2005, wherein the learned Single Judge passed an order under Section 30 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002 (1945 A.D.). 2. The preliminary issue arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge, which was decided under Section 30 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002 (1945 A.D.) is sustainable. 3. To answer the said issue Section 39 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002 (1945 .A.D.) is relevant, which reads thus:- “39. Appeal orders---(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order:- An order (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement; (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings when there is an arbitration agreement; (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a Small Cause Court. (2) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this Section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.” 4. On perusal of the said Section it is evident that no second appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 30 of the Act except the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. 5. Whether the Letters Patent of the concerned High Court will confer power to file intra Court appeal was already considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in decision reported in AIR 1962 SC 256 ( The Union of India v. The Mohindra Supply Co.) and Hon’ble the Supreme Court with reference to the Letters Patent of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that right to appeal against the order is expressly taken away under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which is a special enactment. The Act being a complete Code itself, appeal would not lie against the order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench. In para 18 of the judgment (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “(18) Under the Code of 1908, the right to appeal under the Letters Patent was saved both by S.4 and the clause contained in S.104(1), but by the Arbitration Act of 1940, the jurisdiction of the Court under any other law for the time being in force is not saved; the right of appeal can therefore be exercised against orders in arbitration proceedings only under S.39, and no appeal (except an appeal to this Court) will lie from an appellate orders.” 6. The said principle was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in its decision reported in 1971 JKLR 630 (The Union of India v. M/S Mohinder Singh and Co). In paragraph No.9 it was held thus:- 333.. “that letters patent were conferred on the State High Court by the Ruler of the State in the year 1943, but the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act was brought on the statute book in the month of September 1945 after it received the assent of the Maharaja on 10th of June 1945. The Act came into force two years after the Letters Patent were granted to the State High Court. The Constitutional position is that Maharaja in his times was the fountain head of all laws and authority, legislative and the executive. All laws applicable to the State emanated from him. No law passed by the State Legislature could have any sanction unless it received the assent of His Highness. The ruler of the State was the sole authority to amend, modify, anull and repeal the laws. The sanction behind the Act was the assent of the Ruler. Now it was the same ruler who had conferred Letters Patent on the State High Court in the year 1943 under which right of appeal was granted, who in his wisdom though it fit to enact a special law relating to arbitration in the year 1945 i.e. two years after the Letters Patent were conferred on the High Court in which right of appeal was restricted by enacting section 39. The Act is a complete Code in itself. The Act is a complete Code in itself. It was passed with a view to consolidate and amend the law relating to arbitration in the Jammu and Kashmir State. It is no doubt a Special Act and therefore lays down special procedure for applications under the Act and for appeals. The Act has got its own scheme for appeals. Section 39(1) says that an appeal shall lie from certain specified orders and from no others. The bar is express and explicit. The imposition of restriction on appeals as envisaged in Section 39 would imply that it was intended by the same authority which granted Letters Patent to curtail the right of appeal in arbitration matters.” 3333.. 7. In the light of above pronouncements of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court, we are of the view that intra Court appeal filed by the appellants challenging the order of the learned Single Judge is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.