CHANDRA KANTA SINHA versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 12-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
CHANDRA KANTA SINHA 
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
letters Patent of Patna High Court-Clause 10-Maintainabili(v-
Appe//ant 's truck caused a fatal accident-Trial Court ordered respondents 
A 
B 
to pay interim compensation of Rs. 50,000-Single Judge allowed appeal C 
against that order-letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench 
challenging the order of the Single Judge was held to be not maintainable-
On appeal this court-Held, appeal against order of one Judge not permissible 
(i) when judgment was passed in second appeal against judgment delivered 
in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of a court subject to the 
superintendence of the If igh Court (ii) when judgment was made under D 
exercise of revisional jurisdiction-Appeal was permissible when Single Judge 
while passingjudgment in second appeal declares case fit for appeal, however, 
Section /OOA CPC does not permit the same now-No l.P. appeal will lie 
provided the second appeal was against a decree or order of a District Judge 
or a Subordinate Judge or any other judge subject to superintendence of the E 
High Court passed in first appeal-(iii) letters Patent Appeal was 
maintainable as order of Single Judge was not passed in second appeal. 
Words and Phrases-Meaning of "'Appellate Jurisdiction" in the context 
of letters Patent of Patna-Clause JO. 
A claim case was filed against the appellant as his truck caused a fatal 
accident. Trial Court ordered respondents to pay an interim compensation of 
Rs. 50,000 against which an appeal was filed before the High Court and the 
same was allowed by the Single Judge. An L.P. appeal filed from the judgment 
of the Single Judge before a Division Bench. It was held that the Letters Patent 
Appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable. Hence this appeal. 
Appellant contended that under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna 
an appeal would lie against the erroneous decision of the Single Judge. 
F 
G 
Respondents contended that as the judgment of the Single' Judge was H 
759 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A passed under the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, Letters Patent 
Appeal was not maintainable under Clause JO. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna, judgments of 
B one Judge of the High Court are classified in two groups. In the first group 
fall judgments from which appeal will lie, excluding two categories of 
judgments of one Judge of the High Court i.e. (i) a judgment passed in 
exercise of the appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in 
- exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence 
C of the said High Court which means a judgment passed in second appeal and 
(ii) from an order or judgment made in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 
The second group takes in judgments of one Judge passed in second appeal 
where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one 
for appeal. However, Section IOOA CPC now bars an appeal under the Letters ' 
Patent from the judgment of one Judge of a High Court passed in second appeal / 
D even with the leave of the Judge who passed the judgment. (762-F-H) 
National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd v. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd., 
f19531 SCR 1028; New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Orissa State Finance 
<;orporation and Ors., 119971 3 SCC 462'; Municipal Corporation of 
E Brihanmumbai and Anr. v. State Bank of India, (1999) 11 sec 123 and 
Management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. v. Union of 
India and Anr., relied on. 
-
2. It is clear that the appellate jurisdiction mentioned in Clause 10 
refers to a second appeal which is in respect of decree or order made in 
F exercise of appellate jurisdiction in the first appeal by a court subject to the 
·superintendence of the High Court. No Letters Patent Appeal will .lie to the 
High Court provided the second appeal. was against a decree or order of a 
District Judge or a subordinate judge or any other judge subject to the 
superintendence of the High Court passed in first appeal. (764-F-GI 
G 
New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd v. Orissa State Finance Corporation and 
Ors., f 19971 3 SCC 467, relied on. 
3. Letters Patent Appeal filed against order of the Single Judge is held 
to be main~ainable as the same was not passed in second appeal, L.P.A. to be 
H decided by. the High Court 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.