JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) A very important question is again canvassed before us in this L. P. A. before admission. The question is: Whether a Letters Patent Appeal lay to a Division Bench against an appellate order of a single Judge in an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. read with Section 104 (1), CPC and whether Sec. 104 (2), CPC was a bar to the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?

( 2 ) IN Amruthappa v. Abdul Rasool, (1987) 2 APLJ (HC) 27 , Jagannadha Rao, J. considered this question and he referred the judgments of various High Courts including the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. One very important decision referred to by the learned Judge is Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786. The matter was argued before the learned Judge by a senior counsel and looks as though it is argued thoroughly and the learned Judge, after considering all the decisions and particularly relying on the ratio laid down in the Shah Babulal Khimji s case (supra), held that such a L. P. A. does not lie. In L. P. A. No. 14/88 a similar question was considered by us and by our order dated 16-2-1988. We agreed with the view taken by, Jaganna

Click Here to Read the rest of this document