S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is being sought to be preferred against the order of the learned single Judge made on 9- 3-1993 in Civil Application No. 514 of 1993, which was one for condonation of delay in filing a Second Appeal. The learned single Judge dismissed the civil Application in the following terms : "no substantial question of law is made out. Therefore, C. A. is disposed of as dismissed. No orders as to costs. " there is no declaration by the learned single Judge that the case is a fit one for further appeal.

( 2 ) THE question that comes up for consideration on the basis of the office Note is with reference to the maintainability of the Letters Patent appeal. The learned single Judge was asked to consider the application for condonation of delay in preferring the Second Appeal. The papers in the second Appeal, obviously, have been presented into the Court. The application for condonation of delay is part of the proceedings in the Second Appeal. Only by condonation of delay, the papers in the Second Appeal could be processed further and the Second Appeal could be prosecuted. If there is no condonation of delay there would not be an occasion to process further the papers in the Second Appeal and the same getting prosecuted. By condonation of the delay, if that should happen, the Second Appeal would get numbered and the process for further consideration of it would commence. There could not be an application for condonation of delay, when there is no main proceeding in the Second Appeal. The consideration of the main proceeding stands deferred awaiting the results in the application for condonation of delay. We are obliged to remember the above features so as to enable us to decide as to the nature of the jurisdiction, which the learned single judge was called upon to exercise in the matter.

( 3 ) FIRST the question may, legitimately, arise as to whether the order made by the learned single Judge in the Civil Application is a judgment so as to attract Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Clause 15 of the Letters patent reads as follows :"and we do further order that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of judicature at Fort William in Bengal from the judgment (not being a judgment passed 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 and not being an order made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order paseed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Sec. 107 of the Government of India act or in exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Sec. 108 of the Government of India act and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one judpe of any Divisron Court, pursuant to Sec. 108 of the Government of India Act made (on or after the first day of February, 1929) in 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 hereinbefore provided. "clause 15 of the Letters Patent as could be seen from the extract above speaks about a judgment and by its earlier part excludes from its purview a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court. However, the latter part of Clause 15 of the L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document