Ram Kumar Vs. Rajender Singh

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - ..........to produce the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2002, police report dated 18.11.1999, copies of alkas sajra and khasra girdwari. the learned first appellate court declined such application on the ground that the documents sought to be produced in additional evidence were much in the knowledge of the plaintiff but no such application was moved at earlier stage of the appeal. thus, the learned first appellate court found no merit in the application and dismissed the same.3. the reasoning given by the learned first appellate court is not sustainable in law. two of the documents, in fact, came into existence after the decision of the suit by the trial court on 27.9.1999 i.e. judgment and decree dated 7.1.2002 and police report dated 18.11.1999. the learned first appellate court was expected to permit the plaintiff-petitioner to prove the subsequent event to arrive at just decision. similarly, akash sajra and khasra girdawari are the revenue records. even if such revenue records are produced in evidence, its relevance to the controversy involved in the suit is to be adjudicated upon by the learned first appellate court. therefore, the mere fact that there was delay in moving the application for permission to lead additional evidence is not sufficient to decline such prayer.4. consequently, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of rs. 2,000/- as costs for delay in moving the application. the impugned order dated 4.2.2004 is set aside and the petitioner is given liberty to lead additional evidence as sought for. needless to say that the defendant shall have a right to rebut such evidence as may be deemed appropriate by the defendant.