MANSARAM SAMPAT PATIL Vs. SAMBHU HARCHAND CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law emerges for adjudication in all these Letters Patent Appeals and as such the said appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The admitted positions of fact which crystalises the common question are :

(2.) CONSEQUENT upon preliminary objection, being raised on behalf of the respondent about maintainability of the Letters patent Appeals, the above question emerges for adjudication. The learned Advocates appearing for the respondents in support of the preliminary objection contended that under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay high Court no appeal lies against a judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as an appeal is expressly barred by clause 15 of the Letters patent itself. Before we consider the objection raised on behalf of the respondents touching the maintainability of the appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, it would be appropriate to reproduce clause 15 of the Letters Patent, which reads thus :-

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent/objectors submits that the issue is concluded way back in the year 1981 when a special Bench comprising of five Judges of the Bombay High Court disapproved the view taken by the Full Bench in Shankar Naroba salunke and others Vs. Gyanchand lobhachand Kothari and others and overruled the Full Bench judgment. The Full bench in Shankar Naroba Salunke and others vs. Gyanchand Lobhachand Kothari and others recorded the following findings: (1) that the Constitution of India brought about fundamental change in the character of the high Courts which were in existence then (2)that the power exercised by the High Court is exercised finally whether by a Single Judge or by a Division Bench Courts. (3) Letters Patent appeal is not maintainable against a judgment delivered by Single Judge either invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Special bench recorded its conclusions in para No. 120 of the judgment reported in 1981 Mh. LJ. 93 in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kusum wd/o. Charudutta and Ors. Justice madon who delivered the judgment for the special Bench, after dealing with the history of the Bombay High Court and its jurisdiction, has extensively dealt with the Letters Patent jurisdiction of the High Court. The conclusions No. 25, 29, 32, 33, 34 and 36 are relevant for the decision of the objection raised by the respondents touching the maintainability. Hence, we reproduce the same.