Back
1995 JLJ 375
(FULL BENCH)
U.L. Bhat, C.J., M.V. Tamaskar and Rajeev Gupta, JJ.
Seem a Mitra (Smt.) and another v. Smt. Lotika Mitra and others
L.P.A. No.3 of 1989; against the order of Hon‘ble Justice Shri B.M. Lal, J. passed in M.C.C. No. 634 of 1988; Decided on 27.9.1994.
(2) Letters Patent (M.P.) -- Cl. 10 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 6 R. 17 -- time barred amendment allowed affecting merits of the action -- defendant deprived of taking defence of limitation -- LPA against such order is maintainable. AIR 1974 SC 1719 followed. [Para 6
(3) Letters Patent (M.P.) -- Cl. 10 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 100, 100A and 151 -- second appeal disposed of -- application thereafter filed under S. 151 for clarification of the judgment -- such application also dismissed -- no LPA is maintainable against such order. 1990 JLJ 501 relied on. [Para 7
(4) Letters Patent (M.P.) -- Cl. 10 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 -- O.43 R. 1 (r) -- S. 104 -- trial Court dismissed application under O.39 Rr. 1 and 2 -- High Court allowed the appeal-- further appeal as LPA not maintainable against appellate order. 1995 JLJ 141 (FB) relied on. [Para 8
(5) Letters Patent (M.P.) -- Cl. 10 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 100 and 100A -- judgment passed in second appeal-- bar contained under S. 100A is total mid final -- no further appeal as LPA is maintainable against such judgment. AIR 1964 AP 162 distinguished. [Paras 9 & 10
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.47 Rr.1, 2, 4 and 7 -- O.43 R.1 (w) and S. 100 -- Letters Patent (M.P.) -- Cl. 10 -- review application seeking review of judgment passed in second appeal dismissed on merits -- no further appeal lies -- if review application is allowed -- appeal may be filed under. O. 43 R. 1 (w). [Para 13
(7) Letters Patent (M.P.) -- Cl. 10 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 100, 100A -- O. 47 R. 7 (1) -- review sought against judgment passed in second appeal -- no LPA lies against such order -- main judgment passed in second appeal itself is not open to further appeal as barred under S. 100A -- subsequent order relating to the main judgment cannot be appealable. 1990 JLJ 501 relied on. AIR 1974 SC 1719 distinguished. AIR 1964 AP 162 dissented from. AIR 1981 SC 1786 followed. [Para 14
¼1½ ySVlZ isVsaV ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 10 && flfoy iz- la-] 1908 && /kkjk 100] vk- 47 fu- 1 rFkk 7 && iqufoZyksdu vkosnu ds izR;korZu ds fy, vkosnu [kkfjt && iqufoZyksdu f}rh; vihy esa ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo:) bZfIlr && ,sls vkns‘k ds fo:) yS-is-v- pykus ;ksX; ughaA yS-is-v- Ø- 151@86 rFkk , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 1786 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 4 ¼2½ ySVlZ isVsaV ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 10 && flfoy iz- la-] 1908 && vk- 6 fu- 17 && le; oftZr la‘kks/ku dh vuqKfIr ls dkjZokbZ ds xq.kkxq.k izHkkfor && izfroknh ifjlhek dk izfrokn djus ls oafpr && ,sls vkns‘k ds fo:) yS-is-v- pykus ;ksX; gSA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 1719 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 6 ¼3½ ySVlZ isVsaV ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 10 && flfoy iz- la-] 1908 && /kkjk 100] 100d rFkk 151 && f}rh; vihy dk fuiVkjk && rRi‘pkr~ fu.kZ; ds Li"Vhdj.k ds fy, /kkjk 151 ds v/khu vkosnu Qkby fd;k x;k && ,slk vkosnu Hkh [kkfjt && ,sls vkns‘k ds fo:) yS-is-v- pykus ;ksX; ughaA 1990 ts ,y ts 501 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 7 ¼4½ ySVlZ isVsaV ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 10 && flfoy iz- la-] 1908 && vk- 39 fu- 1 rFkk 2 && vk- 43 fu- 1 ¼n½ && /kkjk 104 && vk- 39 fu-1 rFkk 2 ds v/khu vkosnu fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt && mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vihy vuqKkr && vihyh vkns‘k ds fo:) yS-is-v- ds :i esa vkxs vihy pykus ;ksX; ughaA 1995 ts ,y ts 141 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼5½ ySVlZ isVsaV ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 10 && flfoy iz- la-] 1908 && /kkjk 100 rFkk 100d && f}rh; vihy esa ikfjr fu.kZ; && /kkjk 100d esa varfoZ"V otZu furkar rFkk vafre && ,sls fu.kZ; ds fo:) yS-is-v- ds :i esa vkxs vihy pykus ;ksX; ughaA , vkb vkj 1964 vkiz 162 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 9 rFkk 10 ¼6½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 47 fu-1] 2] 4 rFkk 7 && vk- 43 fu- 1 ¼c½ rFkk /kkjk 100 && ySVlZ isVsaV ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 10 && f}rh; vihy esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds iqufoZyksdu dh bZIlk dk iqufoZyksdu vkosnu xq.kkxq.k ij [kkfjt && vkxs vihy ugha gksxh && ;fn iqufoZyksdu vkosnu vuKkr gks && vihy vk- 43 fu- 1 ¼c½ ds v/khu Qkby dh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 13 ¼7½ ySVlZ isVsaV ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 10 && flfoy iz- la-] 1908 && /kkjk 100] 100 d && vk- 47 fu- 7 ¼1½ && f}rh; vihy esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds fo:) iqufoZyksdu dh bZIlk && ,sls vkns‘k ds fo:) yS-is- ugha gksxh && /kkjk 100d ds v/khu oftZr gksus ds dkj.k f}rh; vihy esa ikfjr Lo;a eq[; vkns‘k ij vkxs vihy ugha dh tk ldrh && eq[; fu.kZ; ls lacaf/kr i‘pkr~orhZ vkns‘k vihy ;ksX; ugha gks ldrkA 1990 ts ,y ts 501 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 1719 izHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1964 vk iz 162 folEerA , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 1786 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 14
U.L. Bhat, C.J. -- 1. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the dismissal of M.C.C. No. 634 of 1988. The Division Bench which heard the matter has referred the same to a Full Bench.
2. The first appellant's husband filed a civil suit seeking reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction regarding part of the suit property and possession regarding the remaining part of the suit property. The suit was dismissed. First appeal and second appeal were also dismissed. Thereupon, the first appellant's husband filed an application under Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. being M.C.C. No. 442/87. He died during the pendency of the application and the widow and daughter were impleaded as supplemental applicants. The learned Single Judge dismissed the review application for default of appearance of the applicants and want of prosecution. Thereupon, they filed an application, M.C.C. No. 634/88 seeking to set aside the order of dismissal for default and seeking restoration of M. C. C. No. 442/87. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application on merits holding that there was no sufficient cause to set aside the earlier order of dismissal. It is this order which is now challenged under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
3. Assuming that in view of the language of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, an appeal may lie against an order of the nature sought to be challenged in this appeal, the question is what is the impact of Sec. 100-A and O.47 Rule 7 C.P.C. on the aspect of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.
4. We will briefly refer to the decision placed before us. In L.P.A. No. 151/86, this Court held that an L.P.A. is not maintainable against an order dismissing an application to restore an application seeking review of the judgment disposing of the second appeal. The Court placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben [AIR 1981 SC 1786].
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed considerable reliance on the decision in Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. The Home Insurance Co. of New York [AIR 1974 SC 1719] which considered clause 15 of the Bombay Letters Patent which is pari materia of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Nagpur High Court which governs the M.P. High Court. There was a suit filed on the original side of the Bombay High Court. An application seeking amendment of the plaint for incorporating a new relief which would have been barred by limitation on that date, was filed and allowed by the learned Single Judge. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent permits L.P.A. against judgment of the Single Judge. The Supreme Court held that if the order affects the merits of the action between the parties by determining some right or liability, Letters Patent Appeal may lie. It was further held that since the relief sought to be incorporated by a belated amendment was barred by limitation and since the amendment which was allowed related back to the date of suit, the defendant would have been deprived of the opportunity of taking the defence of limitation and therefore the order determined the right or liability of the parties and, therefore, the order amounts to a judgment and an appeal was permitted.
6. In Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben [AIR 1981 SC 1786], the Court held that although Letters Patent is a special law, certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of procedure do apply. to appeals against the decision of a Trial Judge to a larger Bench and the combined reading of section 4,5, 104 and Order 49 Rule 3 of C.P.C. lead to the irresistible conclusion that S. 104 read with order 43 Rule 1 clearly applies to the proceedings before the Trial Judge of the High Court, and these provisions expressly authorise and create a forum for appeal against order falling under various clauses of Order 43, Rule 1 to a larger Bench without at all disturbing interfering with or overriding the Letters Patent jurisdiction. It was further held that even assuming that Order 43 Rule 1 C.P
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
