Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The short question in the case is whether a Letters Patent Appeal (for short `LPA') is maintainable before the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Dated 6.8.2008. Since there was conflict of opinion between different Division Benches of the High Court on the point whether the LPA was maintainable in view of the amendment of Section 100A CPC the Full Bench was constituted, and by the impugned judgment it was held that the LPA was not maintainable in view of Section 100-A CPC.

6. It may be mentioned that the proceedings arose out of an interim order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Bhubaneswar in Civil Suit No.498 of 2004. The Civil Suit is still pending, but against the aforesaid interim order dated 9.9.2005 a first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 being FAO No.386 of 2007 was filed before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who decided it on 6.8.2008. Against the judgment of this learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2008 the LPA was filed. It has been held to be not maintainable by the impugned judgment.

13. In Kamala Devi vs. Khushal Kanwar & Anr. AIR 2007 SC 663, this Court held that only an LPA filed prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act would be maintainable.

14. In the present case the LPA was filed after 2002 and hence in our opinion they are not maintainable.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that Section 100-A does not bar a LPA against a judgment of the learned Single Judge who had decided an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 against an interlocutory order of the District Judge. He submitted that Section 100-A after its amendment in 2002 requires that the judgment of learned Single Judge should be a judgment and decree of such Single Judge. He further submitted that in the present case the learned Single Judge was hearing an appeal against an interlocutory order of the learned Additional District Judge and hence when the learned Single Judge decided the appeal he was not passing any decree because the suit was still pending.

20. To resolve this conflict we have to adopt a purposive interpretation. The whole purpose of introducing Section 100-A was to reduce the number of appeals as the public in India was being harassed by the numerous appeals provided in the statute. If we look at the matter from that angle it will immediately become apparent that the LPA in question was not maintainable because if it is held to be maintainable then the result will be that against an interlocutory order of the District Judge there may be two appeals, first to the learned Single Judge and then to the Division Bench of the High Court, but against a final judgment of the District Judge there can be only one appeal. This in our opinion would be strange, and against the very purpose of object of Section 100-A, that is to curtail the number of appeals.