JITENDRA NARAYAN AGARWAL Vs. RAJIV KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and considered the text and tenor of the impugned order, the factual profile, as well as, the underlined design and desideratum of the provisions of Section 100 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), and, also gone through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2005 passed in I.A. No. 2691 of 2005 in First Appeal No. 475 of 1999. The provisions of Section 100A of the C.P.C., which are relevant for just decision of the matter, may be re -produced:

(2.) IT is very, clear, from the plain perusal of the aforesaid provisions that, notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law for the time being in force in a situation where any appeal from original or appellate decree or order has been heard and decided by a Single Judge of the High Court, no further appeal is permissible in view of the amended provisions of Section 100A of the C.P.C.

(3.) THOUGH , the learned Counsel for the appellant has fairly stated that the appeal on merits against the final decision of the learned Single Judge will not be maintainable, but, he has, strenuously, contended that an order passed on an interlocutory application in a pending appeal can be entertained in a Letters Patent Appeal by invocation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. This submission militates against the amended provisions of Section 100A as non obstante clause, which, undoubtedly, stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent of any High Court no appeal shall lie. If the Letters Patent Appeal does not lie under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the decision on merits finally how could there be an appeal against the interlocutory order. This proposition advanced before us is not supportable by law. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe to it and, accordingly, the whole contention advanced in this Letters Patent Appeal with regard to the maintainability in the face of the provision of Section 100A of the C.P.C. is not maintainable.