DEWA SINGH Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE eight Letters Patent Appeals (13 (P)/51, 9 (P)/54, 40 (P)/54, 9 (P)/55, 27 (P)/55, 57 (P)/55, 58 (P)/55 and 61 (P)/56)were filed in the erstwhile High Court of pepsu against orders passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of the powers of civil revisional jurisdiction of that Court. An identical preliminary objection raised in these appeals is regarding their competency.

(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the matter in question is to be decided according to the law which, before its merger into the State of Punjab, obtained in Pepsu at the time the appeals were filed. Section 52 of the Pepsu 05), which admittedly applies, reads-

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, it is contended that there must have been some mistake somewhere in the drafting or printing of the second proviso to the section, otherwise it would never have been the intention of the Legislature to provide for an appeal against an order made by a Single Judge in exercise of the criminal or civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. That would mean a departure from the powers under the Letters Patent of all other High Courts in India, for which there was no possible reason. In my view, the contention is not without force and it has to be accepted. A simple reading of the second proviso to Section 52 gives the impression, of there being something missing without the insertion of which the proviso fails to convey the complete sense. No decree can ever be passed in the exercise of the criminal appellate jurisdiction of the High Court; use of the term 'decree' in conjunction with 'judgment' or 'order' is un-understandable. It does not stand to reason that while excluding the right of appeal against a criminal appellate order, the section would provide for an appeal against an order passed by the Single Judge on a criminal revision. Again, a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the powers of superintendence would not be open to appeal, but an order made in a petition for revision would be appellable. A brief history of the legislation will make it abundantly clear that this manifest contradiction or any departure from the powers under the Letters Patent of other high Courts in India was never intended, and that it is a case of an inadvertent error of the draftsman or the printer.