Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing a first appeal for default. The provision requires a purposive interpretation, treating provided opportunities for hearing as equivalent to being 'heard' to prevent multiple stages of intra-court litigation.

Reserved on 11.02.2026 Pronounced on 25.02.2026 Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in C.M.P No. 65 of 2021 whereby the said C.M.P. has been dismissed by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner/appellant for restoration of First Appeal No. 121 of 2018 to its original file.

2. The office has raised objection with respect to the maintainability of the present appeal by referring to the order dated 23.11.2010 passed in L.P.A No. 57 of 2009 wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by referring to Section 100-A of CPC, has held that Letters Patent Appeal cannot be entertained if the Single Judge of this court has already exercised his jurisdiction by passing an order.

3. The notices were earlier issued to the respondents in pursuance of which few of them have appeared in this case also raising the issue of maintainability of the present appeal.

4. The factual background of the case is as under: -

(i) The appellant had filed Money Suit No. 02/1993 for recovery of Rs. 1,79,47,752.81 with interest thereon @ 21.75%, however the claim of the appellant was rejected vide judgment dated 05.01.2018 and decree dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) 1^st, Bermo at Tenughat.

(ii) Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed first appeal being F.A. No. 121 of 2018 and vide order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, the appellant was directed to file requisites for service of notices upon the respondent nos. 2 to 11 by registered post with A/D as well as under ordinary process within four weeks, failing which, the First Appeal was to be dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

(iii) The Appellant failed to comply the said direction of the learned Single Judge and consequently, the first appeal was dismissed on 22.07.2020 for non-compliance of the Court’s order dated 24.06.2020.

(iv) The appellant subsequently filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 65 of 2021 for restoration of F.A No. 121 of 2018 to its original file claiming that due to poor network during virtual hearing, the counsel for the petitioner/appellant could not clearly hear that a peremptory order was passed by the Single Judge as a result of which the requisites etc. could not be filed.

(v) The said Civil Miscellaneous Petition was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 15.03.2024 observing inter-alia that even if the learned counsel for the petitioner could not clearly hear the Court’s order, it was always expected that he would obtain a copy of the order and take necessary steps in the matter.

(vi) Hence, the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has given much emphasis to the argument that the first appeal filed by the appellant was never heard by the learned Single Judge of this court, rather the same was dismissed for default. As such, the statutory bar imposed by Section 100-A CPC against filing of appeal before the Division Bench challenging the order passed by the Single Judge, would not be applicable in the case in hand.

6. It is further argued that though Section 100-A CPC bars filing of Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment and decree passed by the Single Judge, it does not bar filing of Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the Single Judge rejecting a