2008 (10) TMI 698 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) in light of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as amended by Amendment Act, 2002.
2. Applicability of Section 100A to appeals arising under special enactments like the Indian Succession Act.
3. Retrospective application of Section 100A to pending cases.
4. Interpretation of Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 in conjunction with Section 100A of the CPC.
5. Examination of relevant case law and precedents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) in light of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as amended by Amendment Act, 2002:
The central issue is whether an LPA is maintainable against the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court in the context of Section 100A of the CPC, which states, "Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single Judge."

2. Applicability of Section 100A to appeals arising under special enactments like the Indian Succession Act:
The judgment discusses the applicability of Section 100A to appeals under special enactments. It was argued that Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, provides an independent source of appeal, and amendments in the CPC cannot regulate appeals arising out of other local or special enactments unless expressly excluded by a special statute. However, the court concluded that Section 100A of the CPC, with its non-obstante clause, clearly intends to bar further appeals, including those under special enactments like the Indian Succession Act.

3. Retrospective application of Section 100A to pending cases:
The appellant argued that the right of appeal is substantive and vested on the date of institution of the suit, and Section 100A, as amended in 2002, should not apply retrospectively to pending cases. The court, however, held that the necessary intendment of Section 100A is that no further appeal should be maintainable where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided after July 1, 2002, by a single Judge of a High Court. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to minimize delays in litigation.

4. Interpretation of Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 in conjunction with Section 100A of the CPC:
Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, provides for an LPA against the judgment of a single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction. However, Section 15 of the same Act contains a saving clause, stating that the provisions of the Act are subject to any provision made by the legislature or other authority. The court interpreted that the non-obstante clause in Section 100A of the CPC takes precedence, effectively barring LPAs against judgments rendered by a single Judge in an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or order.

5. Examination of relevant case law and precedents:
The judgment extensively reviews past decisions, including:
- National Sewing Thread Co. v. James Chadwick and Bros.: Held that an LPA is maintainable unless expressly excluded.
- Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: Held that legislative provisions can restrict the right of appeal under the Letters Patent.
- Subal Paul v. Malina Paul: Discussed the maintainability of LPAs under special statutes and emphasized that Section 104 of the CPC does not bar further appeals if provided by another statute.
- P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd.: Clarified that the legislature can exclude LPAs, and the specific exclusion in Section 100A bars further appeals.
- Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd.: Affirmed that Section 100A bars LPAs against decisions of single Judges in appeals arising under special statutes.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that after the insertion of Section 100A in the CPC, no LPA is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a single Judge in a first appeal arising out of a special enactment like the Indian Succession Act. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.