Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of appeal as objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal against the order of the learned single judge dated 6th May, 2011 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 220 of 2007 arising out of the proceeding taken in the Indian Succession Act for grant of Letter of Administration no further appeal lies in view of the bar u/s 100A of Civil Procedure Code.

2. Controverting, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Section 100A bars only appeals arising out of any proceeding wherein appeal has been under the Code of Civil Procedure itself and Section 100A does not bar the intra-court appeals preferred in proceedings arising out of Special Statute.

3. It is submitted that in the present matter the appellant's application was submitted before the District Court, Bokaro under provision of Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of Letters of Administration with regard to the WILL executed on 01.06.1999 by one B.N.Mallick. The appellant's application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 19th June, 2007 and the appellant challenged the order dated 19th June, 2007 by preferring appeal under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act specially u/s 299 of the Indian Succession Act. That Miscellaneous Appeal No. 220 of 2007 was dismissed by the learned single judge on 6th May, 2011 and therefore, the facts clearly demonstrate that the appeal before the Single Judge was under a special statute and was not under any of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, the bar created by Section 100A cannot be applied so as to nullify the provisions of the Letters Patent which provides for further appeal i.e., intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court against any of the order passed by the Single Judge of High Court.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Subal Paul -vs.-Malina Paul and another, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 361 and in the case of P.S.Sathappan -vs.-Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported in A.I.R. (2004) SC (4) 5152 and in the case of Kamla Devi -vs.-Kushal Kanwar & Anr., reported in (2006) 13 SCC 295.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that now the issue is no more resintegra in view of the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have considered the amendment of Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code and held that even where appeal under any special statute is maintainable before the single judge of the High Court even in those matters also, by virtue of bar created by Section 100A C.P.C., further appeal i.e., Letters Patent is not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments delivered in the case of Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr. -vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd,. & Ors. reported in (2006) 7 SCC 613 and in the case of Geeta Devi & Anr. -vs.-Puran Ram Raigar & Anr. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 84 and in the case of Mohd. Saud & Anr. -vs.-Dr.(Maj.) Shaikh Mohfooz & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 517.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgements referred above. It is not in dispute that in the case in hand the proceeding originated in special act i.e., in Indian Succession Act and thereafter, it was subject matter of appeal before the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Special Statute u/s 299 of the Indian Succession Act of 1925 and was not preferred up Section 96 or any other Section of C.P.C.. The appellant has preferred this L.P.A. and the maintainability of which has been objected. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subal Paul (Supra) while considering one matter under the same Act i.e., the Indian Succession Act, 1925, after considering the provisions of Section 104(1) and 104(2) as well as Letters Patent of Calcutta High Court (as extended to Gauhati High Court