PURUSHOTTAM Vs. AVINASH VASUDEO JAVDEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In our view, the objection has to be upheld for the following reasons :

(2.) AFTER considering the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) (Umaji Keshao Meshram and other v. Smt Radhikabai and another) A. I. R. 1986 Supreme Court 1272 and (ii) (The Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve and others) Civil Appeal No. 520 of 1989, decided on 27th January, 1989 a Full Bench of this Court in the case of (Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliar and others v. Nihalchand Vaghajibhai Shaha and others), 1989 Mh. L. J. 695 has laid down certain tests to be applied in deciding the question of maintainability of appeals under clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the judgment of a Single Judge upon a petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which is impugned the order of the Subordinate Court or Tribunal.

(3.) A reference to Full Bench was necessitated since there was a conflict of view between different Division Benches of this Court upon the correct ratio of Umaji Keshao. The conflict was between the case of (Surekhabai Amrut Asare v. Motilal Prabhudayal Sharma) 1987 Mh. L. J. 610 : 1987 (3) Bom. C. R. 211 on one hand and the case of (i) (Pushpabai Anandji Gala v. Sukumar Jinnappa Bhore) 1988 Mh. L. J. 765 and (ii) (Jaitunbi v. Smt. Halimabi) L. P. A. No. 14 of 1988 and 111 of 1988 decided on 21st December, 1988 on the other.