IMPORTANT POINT
LPA, under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of Patna, against Misc. Appeal decided by a Single Judge against motor accident claim to trial Court is maintainable.

Headnote:(i) Clause 10 of Letters Patent, Patna-Appeal from order of Single Judge to Division Bench of same High Court when maintainable?-Case law referred.
       Held : It can thus be seen that for purposes of appeal, under this clause, judgments of one Judge of the High Court of Patna are classified in two groups. In the first group fall judgments from which appeal will lie to the said High Court. From this group two categories of judgments of one Judge of the High Court are excluded (i) a judgment passed in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, that is, where a judgment is passed by a Judge of the High Court in second appeal, no Letters Patent Appeal lies in the said High Court; and (ii) from an order or judgment made in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The second group takes in judgments of one Judge passed in second appeal where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal. But now Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars an appeal under the Letters Patent from the judgment of one Judge of a High Court passed in second appeal even with the leave of the Judge who passed the judgment. (Para 9)
       (ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 140-Claim under for motor accident-Trial Judge ordered that interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the claimants by Insurance Company-Insurance Co. filed Misc. Appeal to High Court-Single Judge allowed-From that order LPA filed to D.B. of High Court-Whether maintainable? (Yes)-Contrary decision of High Court holding not maintainable set aside-Appeal by Special Leave to Supreme Court-Allowed-L.P.A. restored and case remanded to High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law.
       Held : Learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that clause 10 provides that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court only from "a judgment passed in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction not being a judgment passed in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction" and as the judgment of the learned Single Judge was passed in the appellate jurisdiction, a Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable. In our view, the contention of the learned counsel is based on a mis-reading of clause 10. He has overlooked the vital words, - namely, 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" in the first limb of clause 10. If those words are also read along with the words relied upon by the learned counsel, it becomes clear that the appellate jurisdiction mentioned therein refers to a second appeal under Section 100 CPC (or under any provision of an special Act) which is in respect of decree or order made in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in the first appeal, filed under Section 96 CPC, (or under any provision of an special Act) by a court subject to the superintendence of the High Court. In other words, from a judgment passed by one judge in second appeal, under Section 100 CPC or any other provision of an special Act no Letters Patent Appeal will lie to the High Court provided the second appeal was against a decree or order of a District Judge or a subordinate Judge or any other judge subject to the superintendence of the High Court passed in a first appeal under Section 96 CPC or any other provision of an special Act. (Para 13)
       Held consequently, from the above discussion, it follows that the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in M.A.No. 494 of 1996 dated April 13, 1998 would lie before the Division Bench under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Letters Patent Appeal No. 599 of 1998 is, therefore, maintainable. The order of the High Court under challenge is set aside. The Letters Patent Appeal is restored to the file of the High Court. The High Court will now decide the said letters patent appeal on merits in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-Leave is granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 599 of 1998 dated July 2, 1998 holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable.

3. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether the Letters Patent Appeal No. 599 of 1998 filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court passed in M.A.No. 494 of 1996 dated April 13, 1998, is maintainable.

4. The following resume of the facts will be helpful in appreciating the question.

5. The appellant is the owner of a truck which met with an accident, on February 1, 1996, resulting in the death of one Pradeep Kumar. The parents of the victim filed a Claim Case No. 31 of 1996 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On October 15, 1996, the learned Trial Judge, Madhubani, Bihar ordered that interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- be paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company within one month. Against that order, M.A.No. 494 of 1996 was filed by the Insurance Company, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on April 13, 1998. It was from that order that the Letters Patent Appeal arose, which was held to be not maintainable by the Division Bench of the High Court.

6. Mr. S.B. Sanyal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge would lie to the High Court which was erroneously dismissed as not maintainable. He relied on a decision of this Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.1.

7. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, relying on the judgment of this Court in New Kcnilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Orissa State Finance Corporation & Ors.2 argued that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable and the High Court had rightly rejected the same.

8. It will be useful to refer to Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, Patna, which, after omitting the words not necessary for the present discussion, would read thus :

"That an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the 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 a revisional jurisdiction.........) of one Judge of the said High Court......... that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided, an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act (Article 225 of the Constitution of India) in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court where the Judge who passed the judgment declared that the case is a fit one for appeal......"

9. It can thus be seen that for purposes of appeal, under this clause, judgments of one Judge of the High Court of Patna are classified in two groups. In the first group fall judgments from which appeal will lie to the said High Court. From this group two categories of judgments of one Judge of the High Court are excluded (i) a judgment passed in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, that is, where a judgment is passed by a Judge of the High Court in second appeal, no Letters Patent Appeal lies in the said High Court; and (ii) from an order or judgment made in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The second group takes in judgments of one Judge passed in second appeal wher

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 904

IMPORTANT POINTLPA, under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of Patna, against Misc. Appeal decided by a Single Judge against motor accident claim to trial Court is maintainable.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
LPA, under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of Patna, against Misc. Appeal decided by a Single Judge against motor accident claim to trial Court is maintainable.