B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this group of Letters Patent Appeals a common question arises for our consideration. It is to the following effect: "whether Section 100-A C. P. C. is retrospective and no Letters Patent appeal will lie against a judgment of a single Judge passed in an appeal from an original decree or order and whether all such of those Letters Patent appeals filed prior to 1-7-2002 alone are saved?"

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counselfor the respective parties very elaborately on the above question. Having regard to the importance of the question, we have requested the learned Senior counsel Sri Chella Seetharamayya and sarvasri K. V. Satyanarayana and v. L. N. G. K. Murthy to assist the court as amicus Curiae. Sri J. V. Suryanarayana, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri Kodanda ram Murthy, advocates intervened in the debate and having regard to the importance of the question that falls for our consideration, we have permitted them to intervene and heard their submissions.

( 3 ) SINCE we propose to consider the solequestion relating to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals we do not propose to refer the facts in any of the appeals before us.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the nature of thecontroversy posed for our consideration, it will be convenient to refer to the statutory provisions relating to appeal from any judgment and decree of a Single Judge to that of a Division Bench of the High Court. This was regulated by the provisions of the letters Patent and it will be sufficient for our present purpose to refer to Clause 15 of the letters Patent 1865 for the High Court of judicature for the Presidency of Madras which is applicable to this court. "15. Appeal from the courts of original jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction:- and we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order 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 revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one judge of the said High Court or one judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of Government of India act, and that notwithstanding anything herein before 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 made (on or after the 1st day of February, 1929) 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 declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court or of such division Court shall be to Us, our Heirs or Successors in Our or Their Privy council, as hereinafter provided. "

( 5 ) UNDER that clause, an appeal againstdecree and judgment of a learned Single judge lies to a Division Bench of the High court.

( 6 ) THE Parliament enacted Act 104 of 1976making several and far reaching amendments to the provisions of Code of civil Procedure, 1908. Section 38 of the amendment Act inserted new Section 100-A prohibiting further appeals in certain cases. Section 100-A reads as follows: "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 appellate decree

Click Here to Read the rest of this document