( 43 ) ON the second point, on a consideration of the decision of Apex Court in Khimji's case (6 supra), the Full Bench held that the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 C. P. C. are in addition to the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and for the purpose of appealability to a Division Bench, the condition is that the order of the single judge must be a 'judgment'. It was held that section 104 (1) and 104 (2) are not intended to restrict or control the right of appeal conferred by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Full Bench at para 28 held as follows, the proper way of reconciling the several paragraphs in the judgment is to hold that the Supreme Court accepted that Clause 15 of the Letters patent gave an independent jurisdiction conferring right of Appeal against 'judgments' of learned single judges of the High Court whether passed in original jurisdiction or first appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 104 (1) read with Order 43 Rule 1 C. P. C. The only condition is mat these orders must amount to 'judgments' as understood in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Section 104 (2) is intended to bar further appeals under the Code and is not intended to restrict or control the right

Click Here to Read the rest of this document