B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court made the following reference to the Full Bench:"whether the right of appeal available under the Letters Patent Act is taken away by Section 100-A, C. P. C. in respect of matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having force of law. "this LPA itself has been preferred against the orders of a learned single Judge of this Court in C. M. A. No. 88 of 1998. The matter arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petition filed by the appellant herein seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in an accident has been dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad, against which an appeal was filed before the learned single Judge of this Court under Section 173 of the Act. The learned Judge dismissed the said appeal by order dated 14-6-2002, against which the present LPA has been filed.

( 2 ) THE short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the letters patent appeal preferred against the order of the learned single Judge made in C. M. A. No. 88 of 1998 is maintainable? This Court in S. Shiva Raja Reddy and others v. S. Raghu Raj Reddy held that "all the letters patent appeals presented or filed before 1-7-2002 are maintainable whether they have been admitted or not. What is prohibited is filing of the letters patent appeals after 1-7-2002 i. e. after the new Act had come into force. "

( 3 ) WE are required to notice that the Parliament made amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code ) under Act 22 of 2002. For Section 100-A of the Principal Act (as substituted by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) the following section is substituted:"100a. 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 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 ) A plain reading of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of a single Judge to a Division Bench 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. There is a complete prohibition of filing of further appeal against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge. It is a legislative declaration. The said legislative declaration prohibits preferring of a further appeal against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge even if an appeal is provided in any other law for the time being in force. The expression in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force takes into its ambit of the legislations including the special enactments where a right of appeal may have been provided against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge to a Division Bench. What is prohibited is preferring of a further appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment and decree of a single Judge not only under the Letters Patent for any High Court, but also under any special enactments even if an appeal is provided in such special enactments.

( 5 ) THE Division Bench in Shiva Raja Reddy (1 supra) interpreted the legal consequences that flow out of the newly inserted Section 100a into the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits preferring of further appeals in certain cases. The Division Bench noticed the effect of non-obstante clause employed in Section 100a prohibiting the filing of letters patent appeals against the decrees and judgments of a learned single Judge - be it original or appellate decree or order. Section 100a of the Code makes it abundantly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document