LexDEDH NATHU RAJA (DEAD) BY L. RS. versus L. ANGHA NATHU .JAMAL (DEAD) BY L. RS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DEDH NATHU RAJA (DEAD) BY L. RS.
V.
L. ANGHA NATHU .JAMAL (DEAD) BY L. RS & ORS.
September 16, 1969
[J. C. SHAH, Y. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Practice and Proce1iure-States Reorganisatio11 Act (37 of 1956), ss.
52, 57 ·and 59-lligh Court in Part B State of Sc.urashtra-Appeal from
Judg111ent to single judge 10 Division Bench perrnissible only with certi-
ficate-Part B State n?erg-cd wi~1h State ot' 80111bay and High Court in Part
B Srate abolishcd-Prvceedings transferred to
Bo111bay
High
Court-
Letters P£1tent, Cl. 15-Judginent of single Judge in first appoof" appealab/e
lVithout certificate-f~irst appeal to High Court in Part B State-Disposed
of by single Judge of Bombay High Court after merger-Whether appeal
to Division Bench lies without certificate.
Under s. 22A(2) of the Saurashtra Ordinance No. 2 of 1948, an appeal
lay I<> a Division Bench of· the Saurashtra High Court from a judgment of
a single Judge of that High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdic~
tion, i.f the Judge certified that t'.e c<is~ was a fit one for appeal.
The
States Reorganisation Act, 1956, merged the Part 'B' State of Saurashtra
into the State of Bombay, abolished the High Court of Saurashtra as from
November l, 1956, and transferred the proceedings pending before the
High Court of Saurashtra to the Hig'.1 Court of Bombay. Section 52 of the
Act conferrtd upon the H;gh Court oi Bon1bay, after November 1. 1956.
the original, appellate and other jurisd~ct;o., which was exercised by the
High Court of S1urashtra imme.diat~ly p.:-ior to that date in respect of the
territories in the State of Saurashtra.
The Saurashtra Ordinance No. 2
of of 1948 was repealed with effect from Nwernber I. 1956. by the Sau-
rashtra (Adaptation of Laws on Union Subjects Order, 1957. and
the
Rules and orders relating to practice a:id procedure framed hy
t:~-: lligh
Court of Saurashtra \Vere abrogated as from November 1, 1956 by rules of
the High Court of Bombay niade unde.r s. 54 of the State Reorganisation
Act. 1956. .The effect of s. 57 of the S ate~ Reo;·ganisation Act is that the
pO\l,'Cf5 of a Division B.znch of the High (,ourt for the new State of Bombay
shali bL the. same as the pO\.vers of the Division Bench under the law in
force immediately hcforc November I. 1956, in the State of Bombay.
Clause J 5 of the l.ett~rs PJtent of the Hi!!h Court of Bombay, which \Vas
la\I.' in force immediately before Noven1ber l. 1956. in the State of
Bombay, provides that an appeal fron1 the judgment of a single Judge of
the Bcmbay High Court. in a first appeal from a judgment of the Subordi~
nate Court, could be filed without a certific:tte of the Judge hearing the
first appeal.
Clause 15 of the Lett:!TS Patent of the Bombay High Court
applied also to the Gujarat High Court \vhich was establi<.h1:d as a result
of the Bombay Redrganisation Act. 1960.
A first appeal against a decree of a subordinate court in Saurashtra,
pending in the Saurashtra H!gh Court on November l, 1956. was transferred
to the High Court of Bombay, and disposed cf by a single Judge of the
B·.Jmbay High Court.
An nopeal to the Division Bench under Cl. 15 of
the Letters Patent of the High Court of Bon1bay. V/as transferred
to
th~ Gujarat High Court after its establishment. but t\-:e Gujarat High Court
held that the anceal was incompetent under s. 22A of the S:iurashtra Ordi-
nance No. 2 of 1948 without a certificate from the single Judgo.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
D, N. RAJA V. L. A. N. JAMAL (Shah, /.)
435-
In appeal to this Court,
,
HELD: (1) Ii was only in the absence of any provision to the con-
trary, that a right attached to the action when it was commenced in the
subordinate court in Saurashtra that an appeal against the decision of the
single Judge of the High Court of Saurashtra in appeal, shall lie only if the
single judge certified that it was a fit case for appeal to a Division Bench.
Garikapatti Veerayya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury, [1957] S.C.R. 488,
referred to. [443 A-Bl.
(2) But, from November 1, 1956, the Saurashtra High Court
was
abolished, the Saurashtra Ordinance No. 2 of 1948 was repealed, and the
jurisdiction of the High Court of Saurashtra was conferred upon the
Bombay High Court.
Therefore, the single Judge of the. High Court who·
heard •he first appeal, heard it not as a Judge of the Saurashtra High Court,
but as a Judge of the Bombay Court. [ 443 B-C]
{3) Section 52 of the States ReorgExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.