Honble QUADRI, J.–Leave is granted.

(2). This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 599 of 1998 dated July 2, 1998 holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable.

(3). The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether the Letters Patent Appeal No. 599 of 1998 filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court passed in M.A. No. 494 of 1996 dated April 13, 1998, is maintainable.

(4). The following resume of the facts will be helpful in appreciating the question.

(5). The appellant is the owner of a truck which met with an accident, on February 1, 1996, resulting in the death of one Pradeep Kumar. The parents of the victim filed a Claim Case No. 31 of 1996 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On October 15, 1996, the learned Trial Judge, Madhubani, Bihar ordered that interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- be paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company within one month. Against that order, M.A. No. 494 of 1996 was filed by the Insurance Company, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on April 13, 1998. It was from that order that the Letters Patent Appeal arose, which was held to be not maintainable by the Division Bench of the High Court.

(6). Mr. S.B. Sanyal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge would lie to the High Court which was erroneously dismissed as not maintainable. He relied on a decision of this Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. (1).

(7). Mr. Vishnu Mehra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, relying on the judgment of this Court in New Konilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. Orissa State Finance Corporation & others (2) argued that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable and the High Court had rightly rejected the same.

(8). It will be useful to refer to Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, Patna, which, after omitting the words not necessary for the present discussion, would read thus :

``That an appeal shall lie to the said High Court 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 the exercise of a revisional jurisdiction......) of one Judge of the said High Court....... 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 Judge of any Division a Court, pursuance to Section 108 of the Government of India Act (Article 225 of the Constitution of India) 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 declared that the case is a fit one for appeal.....

(9). It can thus be seen that for purpose of appeal, under this clause, judgments of one Judge of the High Court of Patna are classified in two groups. In the first group fall judgments from which appeal will lie to the said High Court. From this group two categories of judgments of one Judge of the High Court are excluded (i) a judgment passed in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, that is, where a judgment is passed by a Judge of the High Court in second appeal, no Letters Patent Appeal lies in the said High Court; and (ii) from an order or judgment made in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The second ground takes in judgments of one Judge passed in second appeal where the J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document