AMRITLAL GOKALDAS MEHTA Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of six appeals a preliminary objection has been raised for decision. The objection was first raised when Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 1960 was called out for hearing. As the objection affected a number of other Letters Patent Appeals we adjourned the appeal and directed that all other Letters Patent Appeals in which the same objection was likely to be raised should be fixed for hearing them together so that the preliminary objection if raised could be decided after hearing all the learned Advocates appearing therein. It is in pursuance of that order that all the above appeals are fixed for hearing the preliminary objection if the same happens to be raised. This judgment will dispose off the preliminary objection which is raised by all the learned Advocates for the respondents in all the appeals.

(2.) The preliminary objection is that the present appeals are incompetent without the certificates of the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court from whose judgments the Letters Patent Appeals purpose to have been filed.

(3.) The litigation in each of the aforesaid appeals started before the 1 November 1956 in the Saurashtra area. The original suits in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 2 of 1960 8 of 1960 and 10 of 1960 were all decided before the 1st November 1956. The original suits in the other three Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 9 of 196h 16 of 1960 and 17 of 1960 were decided after the 1st of November 1956. First appeals were preferred from the original decrees in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 2 of 1960 and 8 of 1960 to the then High Court of Saurashtra. Whilst these first appeals were pending in the High Court of Saurashtra and the original suits in the other cases were pending in their respective Courts The States Reorganisation Act 1956 (hereafter called the Reorganisation Act ) was passed. Under that Act the States of Saurashtra and Kutch and parts of some other States were merged and the new State of Bombay was created the High Court of Saurashtra was abolished and the High Court of Bombay was established as the High Court for the new State of Bombay. Under sec. 59 sub-sec (3) the first appeals from which Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 2 of 1960 and 8 of 1960 arise were transferred to the High Court of Bombay. The original suit in Letters Patent Appeal No 10 of 1960 came to be decided before the commencement of the Reorganisation Act and the original suits in the other cases came to be decided after the 31st of October 1956 the date on which the Reorganisation Act commenced. First appeals were filed in the High Court of Bombay at Rajkot from the decisions recorded in those other original suits. Under the rules framed by that High Court for the disposal of its business the first appeals in all the aforesaid six cases were decided by a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay sitting at Rajkot. Letters Patent Appeals were filed by appellant or appellants in each case from the decision of that learned single Judge. When all these Letters Patent Appeals were pending in the High Court of Bombay the Bombay Reorganisation Act 1960 was passed and under sec. 28 thereof the present High Court was created and under sec. 37 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act 1960 all the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals were transferred to this Court for disposal and they were given in this High Court the numbers which they now bear. Each appeal had been taken cognizance of under the letters Patent jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay derived by that Court from clause 15 of its Letters Patent. Under that clause an appeal lies from a judgment of a single Judge to the High Court of Bombay without certificate from the learned Judge who decides the first appeal. The objection which is raised on behalf of the respondents in each of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals lies under clause 15 of the Letters Patent but that an appeal lies in each case only under sec. 22A of The High Court of Judicature Ordinance for the State of Saurashtra 1948 (hereafter called Ordinance of 1948) by which the High Court of Saurashtra was created. That sec. 22A requires that a further appeal from a first appeal shall lie if the Judge who decides the first appeal certifies that the case is fit for further appeal. It is an admitted position that in none of these appeals was a certificate obtained by any of the respective appellants. Therefore the contention is that as all the aforesaid further appeals from the decisions of the learned single Judge could only be under sec. 22A of the Ordinance of 1948 the further appeals were not competent without the necessary certificates and that therefore all the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. That is the question which has been raised for decision in this group of Letters Patent Appeals.