This intra-Court appeal was dismissed on the grounds of lack of maintainability. The Court held that Section 100-A of the CPC prohibits any further appeal against the order of a Single Judge, rendering the Letters Patent appeal non-existent under current law.
The appeal was dismissed without any order as to cost due to lack of maintainability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.A. No. 39 of 2016
In the matter of an appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 from the order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in MACA No. 231 of 2012
Basanti Sahoo & others ……… Appellants -versus-
National Insurance Company ……… Respondents Ltd .Represented through its Officer-in-charge & Anr.
For Appellants : M/s. P.K. Muduli, S. Pattanaik & S. Pattanaik For Respondents : None
P R E S E N T :
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VINEET SARAN AND
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
Decided on : 20.07.2016
DR. B.R.SARANGI, J. This intra-Court appeal filed under Article 4 of the
Orissa High Court Order 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in MACA No.231 of 2012, whereby compensation amount of Rs.5.38 lakhs awarded by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar in M.A.C. Case No.10 of 2006 has been modified and
2
reduced to Rs.3.25 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
The claimants being the wife and daughters of the deceased filed MAC Case No.10 of 2006 before the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar claiming compensation for the death of the
3
deceased. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as two issues and, after examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, by order dated 19.12.2011 passed the award of compensation of Rs.5.38 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 16.01.2006. Respondent no.1 National Insurance Company challenged the award dated 19.12.2011 passed by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar in MAC Case No. 10 of 2006 before this Court in MACA No. 231 of 2012 and the learned Single Judge, as already stated, disposed of the said appeal vide order dated 08.05.2013 by reducing the awarded amount from Rs.5.38 lakhs to Rs.3.25 lakhs, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ appeal.
“100-A. No further appeal in certain casesNotwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any 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.”
The aforementioned provision, which has been
substituted by the CPC Amendment Act, 2002 (Section-4) with effect from 01.07.2002, in its clear and unambiguous term prohibits filing of
4
intra-Court appeal against the original or appellate decree or order passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. This apart, the question with regard to maintainability of Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court was subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Mahammed Saud
& Ors. v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, 2008 (II) OLR (FB) 725 and
after discussing various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court it has been held that after introduction of Section 100-A of CPC by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent appeal is maintainable against the judgment/order/decree passed by the learned Single Judge of a High Court.
……………………….. VINEET SARAN
…………….…………..
DR. B.R.SARANGI,
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 2Oth July, 2016, Alok/GDS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an intra-Court appeal under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order 1948 and Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order of a Single Judge.
Whether Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prohibits filing further appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of a High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahammed Saud & Ors. v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh MahfoozRelied on¶26
Mahammed Saud & Ors. v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, 2008 (II) OLR (FB) 725
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Basanti Sahoo & others
National Insurance Company Ltd
Vineet Saran
B.R.Sarang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
