SEEMA MITRA Vs. LOTIKA MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the dismissal of M. C. C. No. 634 of 1988. The Division Bench which heard the matter has referred the same to a Full Bench.

(2.) THE first appellant's husband filed a civil suit seeking reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction regarding part of the suit property and possession regarding the remaining part of the suit property. The suit was dismissed. First appeal and second appeal were also dismissed. Thereupon the first appellant's husband filed an application under Order 47, Rule 1. C. P. C being M. C. C. No. 442/87. He died during the pendency of the application and the widow and daughter were impleaded as supplemental applicants. The learned single Judge dismissed the review application for default of appearance of the applicants and want of prosecution. Thereupon, they filed an application, M. C. C. No. 634/88 seeking to set aside the order of dismissal for default and seeking restoration of M. C. C. No. 442/87. The learned single Judge dismissed the application on merits holding that there was no sufficient cause to set aside the earlier order of dismissal. It is this order which is now challenged under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) ASSUMING that in view of the language of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, an appeal may lie against an order of the nature sought to be challenged in this appeal, the question is what is the impact of Section 100-A and Section 47 Rule 7 C. P. C. on the aspect of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.