MUSHTAQ AHMAD RAFUQUEE Vs. MUMTAZ HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 27.02.2012 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court declining to exercise review jurisdiction in respect or order dated 21.10.2011 passed in CIMA no. 17 of 2008.

(2.) THE basis of the order dated 21.10.2011 is the compromise which has been entered into between the parties and then on that ground the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonch was accordingly modified. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2011 is set out below in-extenso:-

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that there are many hurdles in the course adopted by the appellant. Firstly, the appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in first appeal, namely, CIMA no. 17 of 2008 dated 21.10.2011 would not be maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 100A Code of Civil Procedure which has been added by Act no. VI of 2009 dated 20.03.2009. To a pointed question, learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that intra Court appeal would be maintainable. However, if we assume that the appeal is maintainable even then the appeal could not be filed under Clause 12 against a consent order. The learned Single Judge has passed the order on 21.10.2011 dismissing the appeal of the appellant and has also rejected the review petition vide order dated 27.02.2012. It is doubtful whether the LPA would be competent against a review order without challenging the order dated 21.10.2011 passed in CIMA no. 17 of 2008. On that account also the appeal would not be maintainable. We find no substance either in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant or in the memo of appeal which may be worthwhile to direct the admission of the appeal. The appeal is wholly misuse of the process of the Court and the same is liable to be dismissed.