No further appeal will lie when the CMA has been heard by Single Judge.

Srinivasan, J.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent, as to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 192 of 1974 and in execution of the same, brought the properties to sale. Sale was held which was sought to be set aside by the appellant herein by an application under O.21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Sec.151 of the Code. The application was dismissed by the Executing Court and on appeal in C.M.A. No.775 of 1986, a single Judge of this Court affirmed the order of the Executing Court, it is against the said order, the present L.P. Appeal has been filed.

3. An objection is raised by the respondent that the C.M.A. filed in this Court was under Sec.104, read with O.43, Rule l(j) of the Code and therefore, by virtue of the provision of Sec.l04(2) of the Code, no further appeal will lie from an order passed in the said appeal. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Resham Singh Piyara Singh v. Abdul Sattar, (1996)1 C.T.C. 185: (1996)1 L. W. 357. In that case, a suit was filed by the appellant and an interim injunction was sought. The same was granted by the trial court. On appeal to the High Court, a single Judge passed an order and a Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the said order. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the appeal, as not maintainable. The order was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Bombay High Court and held that Sec. 04(2) of the Code barred an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred before the Division Bench. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:

"It is contended for the petitioner that as per the law laid down by this Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaban D.Kania, (1981)4 S.C.C. 8: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1786: 94 L. W. 47(S.N.), L.P.A., would lie to the Division Bench against the interlocutory order of the single Judge and, therefore, the view of the High Court is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention. O.43, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides an appeal from the orders passed under O.39, Rule 1, etc., as stated in Sub-rule (r), which provides as under: (r) an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 2-A, Rule-4 or Rule 10 of O.39.“

Sec. 104, C.P.C. provides for an appeal from the orders provided in 0.43 save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force and from no other orders. Sub-sec.(2) envisages that” (2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section“. It would, therefore, be clear that when an appeal was filed against the order of the City Civil Court, Bombay to the learned single Judge under O.43, Rule l(r) as provided in Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.104 by operation of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.104 no further appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this Section. In Khimji case, (1981)4 S.C.C. 8:94 L. W. 91 (S.N.), the suit was filed on the original side of the High Court and the learned single Judge on the original side passed an interlocutory order. Against the orders of the learned single Judge, though it was an interlocutory order, since the appeal would lie to the Division Bench under the Letters Patent, this Court held that against the interlocutory orders passed by the single Judge, L.P.A would be maintainable. That ratio, therefore, is clearly inapplicable to the facts in this case.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant however contends that there are judgments of the Supreme Court rendered by larger Benches, taking a contrary view and the judgment cited above need not be followed in view of the earlier decisions by larger Benches. In support of the said contention. Learned counsel has drawn on attention to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co., A.I.R. 1962S.C. 256, Radhey S