CHAUDHARY DATTA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the applicants pray for a certificate under clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, with a view to file an appeal against the decision of S.B Capoor J. in Regular Second Appeal No. 72-D of 1953. The said decision was rendered on Saptember 27, 1966. It does not appear that the applicants movad the learned Judge for a certificate under Clause 10 at the time the judgment was delivered.

(2.) The Delhi High Court cam" into being on October, 31. 1966. On October 5, 1966 the present application was filed. This application was pending before the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court on the day the Delhi High Court came into existence, The learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab certified this case as one of the cases to be transfered to the Delhi High Court under section 12 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. Therefore, this application stood transferred to this Court. Now the question is whether the cartificate, prayed for by the applicants, can be granted by any of the Judges of this High Court. As mentioned earlier, the said regular second appeal had been decided by S.B. Capoor J. He continues to ba a Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

(3.) Clause 10 of the Letters Patent referred to earlier, very specifically says that an appeal shall lie to the High Court, where the Judge, who passed the judgment, declares that the case is a fit one for appeal. Only the Judge, who passed the judgment in thi case. can grant the necessary certificate and no one else. The Judge, who passed the judgment in the.present case, has not granted the applicants that certificate. It is not open to any other Judge to grant a certificate, under Clause 10. This view receves support from the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Mehta Amrital Gokclldas v. The State of Bambly,