Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, NILU AGRAWAL, JJ.
Sant Prasad Rai @ Sant Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Ramawati Devi - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No 784 of 2016 IN SA 218 of 2006
Decided On : 21-04-2016
For the Appellant :Mr Dudh Nath Singh, Advocate
No Letters Patent Appeal lies from second appellate proceedings arising from a Civil Court, and the remedy for an aggrieved party is indicated in Section 105 of CPC.
Headnote:
Letters Patent Appeal - Jurisdiction of Second Appellate Court - Section 107, Section 105 of CPC - The court held that from second appellate proceedings arising from a Civil Court, no Letters Patent Appeal lies. The appellate Court has the jurisdiction to pass orders, and if a party is aggrieved, the remedy is indicated in Section 105 of CPC itself. The judgment in Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji (supra) was relied upon to support the finding.
Fact of the Case:
An interlocutory application was filed by purchasers of certain property during the pendency of a suit to be impleaded as interveners. The appellant, a defendant in the Title Suit, contended that the second appellate Court had no jurisdiction to add parties and that the Letters Patent Appeal would lie.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that from second appellate proceedings arising from a Civil Court, no Letters Patent Appeal lies. The appellate Court has the jurisdiction to pass orders, and if a party is aggrieved, the remedy is indicated in Section 105 of CPC itself.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal from second appellate proceedings arising from a Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 107 and Section 105 of CPC and the judgment in Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji (supra) to establish that no Letters Patent Appeal lies from second appellate proceedings arising from a Civil Court.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was found to be not maintainable and was dismissed accordingly.
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.
The Stamp Report is that the instant Letters Patent Appeal, purportedly filed under Clause 10 of the Patna High Court Rules Letters Patent, is not maintainable. On this question of maintainability, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length.
2. The facts relevant for deciding the question are that in a pending Second Appeal, an interlocutory application was filed by purchasers of certain property during pendency of suit. They wanted to be impleaded as the interest in the suit property had been purchased by them. That intervention application was allowed and the interveners were directed to be added as intervener-respondents. The appellant, in the intra-Court appeal, was the defendant in the Title Suit who had preferred appeal against the original decree and succeeded. He was also one of the respondents in the Second Appeal. His plea, in this intra-Court appeal, is that the second appellate Court, that is this Court dealing with the Second Appeal, had no jurisdiction to add parties. Therefore, this Court exceeded the jurisdiction of a second appellate Court. The jurisdiction could only be found in Article 226 of the Constitution and by this reasoning, the Letters Patent Appeal would lie. According to the learned counsel, whether the second appellate Court decided the matter within its jurisdiction or beyond its jurisdiction, does not matter. According to him, we have to assume that it exercised jurisdiction beyond the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, CPC) and, as such, it could only be Article 226 of the Constitution. For the aforesaid, he relies on the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Versus State of Gujarat & Others, (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1. He has first referred to paragraph 30 which is quoted hereunder:
“30. From the aforesaid pronouncements, it is graphically clear that maintainability of a letters patent appeal would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, the nature and character of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the type of directions issued regard being had to the jurisdictional perspectives in the constitutional context. Barring the civil court, from which order as held by the three-Judge Bench in Radhey Shyam that a writ petition can lie only under Article 227 of the Constitution, orders from tribunals cannot always be regarded for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution. Whether the learned Single Judge has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 or under Article 227 or both, needless to emphasise, would depend upon various aspects that have been emphasized in the aforestated authorities of this Court. There can be orders passed by the learned Single Judge which can be construed as an order under both the articles in a composite manner, for they can co-exist, coincide and imbricate. We reiterate it would depend upon the nature, contour and character of the order and it will be the obligation of the Division Bench hearing the letters patent appeal to discern and decide whether the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution or both. The Division Bench would also be required to scrutinize whether the facts of the case justify the assertions made in the petition to invoke the jurisdiction under both the articles and the relief prayed on that foundation. Be it stated, one of the conclusions recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment pertains to demand and payment of court fees. We do not intend to comment on the same as that would depend upon the rules framed by the High Court.”
3. We have considered the matter and we are not impressed for we maintain that from second appellate proceedings arising from a Civil Court, no Letters Patent Appeal lies.
4. Firstly, to the contention that the second appellate Court lacks jurisdiction to add parties and its only jurisdiction is to determin
