Honble MATHUR, J.–At the motion stage, a question of wide ramification arises for consideration is whether the Special Appeal filed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable in view of Section 100-A introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002?

(2). The impact of Section 100A with respect to special appeals preferred under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949, as stood before commencement of the Constitution and imported under Article 225 of the Constitution, against an original or appellate decree or order passed by the learned Single Judge after 1.7.2002 was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in UCO Bank vs. Roopa Ram (1), to which one of us (Mathur J.) was a party. The Division Bench held that in view of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002, appeals filed after 1.7.2002 are not maintainable and only such letters patent appeals saved are those filed prior to 1.7.2002 whether they have been admitted or not. The question in the instant appeal pertains to impact of Section 100A with respect to special appeals under Article 225 of the Constitution against the appellate order passed in appeal under special enactment namely Motor Vehicles Act by learned Single Judge after 1.7.2002.

(3). It is submitted that paramount Charter under which the High Court functions, would not get excluded by a provision incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure. Elaborating the contention, it is submitted that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal not being a Civil Court, restrictions provided under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted. Strong reliance is placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Brij Mohan Das (2). It is also contended that the legislature has deliberately omitted to extend the provisions of Section 100A to an order passed on appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by not using the words ``decision of Tribunal after the words ``decree or order. It is also argued that the Motor Vehicles Act is a Special Act and it does not prohibit further appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Reliance has been placed on a recent decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Subal Paul vs. Malina Paul (3). Virtually, no argument has been advanced by any of the Counsel opposing the maintainability of the Special Appeal in view of Section 100A CPC. However, there are formidable contentions, which deserve to be considered before answering the question posed.

(4). It can be contended that Section 100A CPC has been introduced to minimize the delay and, as such, to curtail the second appeal in the third Forum, the non-obstante clause has been appended to Section 100A with a view to give the enacting part of the Section an overriding effect over the Acts or the Instruments having the force of law, The purpose of amendment in the Amendment Act has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association vs. Union of India (4), wherein it is held that no prejudice would be caused to the litigants by not providing for intra court appeal even where the value involved is larger. In such cases, the Apex Court opined that the High Court Rules can provide that the Division Bench would hear the regular appeal. The Apex Court found no illegality in the provisions of Section 100A.

(5). Before proceeding to deal with the moot question, we may briefly refer to relevant statutory provisions having a bearing on the controversy involved.

(6). At the outset, we may point out that there has been a controversy as to abrogation of right to intra court appeal in Rajasthan High Court with the repealing Act coming into force on 29.8.2001 by which the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 was repealed. The intra court appeal named

Click Here to Read the rest of this document