Jaswinder Singh vs Mrigendra Pritam Vikramsingh Steiner & ... on 22 August, 2013
16.6 We may also note that the judgment in A.S. Dhupia's case and Hafiz
Mohd's case was also noticed by a Full Bench of this court in Jaswinder
Singh v Mrigendra Pratap Vikram Singh Steiner and Ors. (2013) 196 DLT
1 (FB). The Full Bench, which included three judges, also included one of
us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher J. Interestingly, in this judgement, the court was
called upon to decide whether an intra-court appeal against an order passed
by a Single Judge while exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction [which
is not appealable under Section 104(1) read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the
CPC] would lie under Section 10(1) of the DHC Act or Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent as applicable to this Court, (i.e., the Delhi High Court). The
Court ruled that an appeal would lie under Section 10 of the DHC Act, as
against Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, when a Single Judge of this court
exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction. In this context, the Court also
made observations concerning the difference between the Letters Patent of
1919 granted to the Lahore High Court, of which the Delhi High Court was
the successor, as against the Letters Patent of 1862 granted to the erstwhile
RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2021 & connected matters Page 24 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:19.05.2023
13:34:08
2023:DHC:3426-DB
Presidency Courts i.e., Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. It is based on this
view that the Court observed that an intra-court appeal lay under Clause 10
of the Letters Patent when a Single judge exercised writ jurisdiction, which
is categorized as extraordinary civil jurisdiction.