SAKRIYA AND ANOTHER Vs. KRISHNA PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench which dealt with these cases referred the following question to a larger Bench :

(2.) This reference was made initially in L.P.A. No. 2 of 1984 and in other cases an order was passed stating that this case is also referred |to a larger Bench for the reasons stated in L.P.A. No. 2 of 1984, a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a learned single Judge in an appeal filed under Order XLI, rule 1 (f) read with Sec. 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the order passed today by us, we have held that the question referred is not proper and reformulated the question and answered the question in the negative upholding the non-maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) The present batch of Letters Patent Appeals is directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge, disposing of the appeals filed against awards passed by the various M.A.C. Tribunals under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The question referred in these cases also is inappropriate. We reformulate the question as follows :