judgment

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —

1.In the present appeals, an interesting question is raised about the sustainability of the High Court’s view in the impugned order that the Letters Patent in Lahore Court was not maintainable as no appeal either under Clause 9 or Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was maintainable in the High Court and the impugned order was not covered by Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’). The High Court held as follows:

“In view of the discussion aforesaid, the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Lahore has no application in the State of Himachal Pradesh and hence no appeal either under Clause 9 or Clause 10 of the said Letters Patent would lie to this High Court. The appeal against the judgment of a single Judge of this Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction will, however, lie to a Division Bench of the High Court by virtue of Section 10 of the Delhi Act. This appellate jurisdiction is available against decrees and appellable orders covered under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case, the impugned order is admittedly not covered by any part of Order 43