Section 100A CPC Overrides Clause 12 Of Letters Patent; No Further Appeal Can Lie After Single Judge Of A High Court Decides One: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that Section 100-A has overriding effect over Clause 12 of Letters Patent meaning thereby no further Appeal can lie after a single judge of High Court entertains one arising out of an original or appellate decree or order.

The Court was considering two Appeals challenging an order and Judgment passed by the Single Judge of the High Court.

The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar observed, "From the plain reading of Section 100-A, it is evident that the “non-abstante” clause i.e., “notwithstanding” gives Section 100-A overriding effect over the Letters Patent of this Court. It establishes the precedence of S.100 A over Clause 12of Letters Patent to the extent of conflict. And it clearly provides that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appal shall lie from the Judgment and decree of such Single Judge. This is so even where LPA is preferred against the Judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of special enactment like Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, in the case on hand."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Anisa while the Respondent was represented by Advocate A. A. Wani.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 raised the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Appeals under Clause 12 of Letters Patent in view of the clear provisions of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Appellants before us was the Claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in a Claim Petition filed against the Respondents for seeking compensation for the permanent disablement suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal awarded a compensation and the said award was called in question. The respondent Insurance Company too assailed the award and therefore Single Judge clubbed both the appeals and decided the same by a common order and Judgment. The Appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed and Appeal filed by the Respondent Insurance Company was partially allowed.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the question before it for determination was as to whether an intra Court appeal under Clause 12 of Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and whether against an original or appellate decree or order passed by the Courts subordinate to the High Court?

It noted that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent prescribes remedy of appeal before the Division Bench/Larger Bench from an order, Judgment or decree passed by the Single Bench. However, Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, creates a bar against the maintainability of appeal under Clause 12 of Letters Patent against an order and Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction against an order or decree of the Court below passed, either in the exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction.

The Court held that Section 100-A has overriding effect over Clause 12 of Letters Patent meaning thereby no further Appeal can lie after a single judge of High Court entertains one arising out of an original or appellate decree or order.

The Appeals were accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Attiqa Bano vs. National Insurance Company Limited

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Anisa

Respondent- Advocate A. A. Wani, Advocate N. A. Dendru, Advocate Aatir Javid Kawoosa

Click here to read/ download Order