Full Judgment
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 12-8-1994, passed by the learned single Judge in C. R. No. 158/94, seeking to condone the delay in presenting the revision petition. Following order was passed by the learned single Judge:--
'No good ground is made out for condonation of delay in filing of the revision petition. The order impugned has been passed as far back as on 26-5-1992 and the revision petition has been filed on 11-5-1994 near about a lapse of two years from the date of passing of the order. The application is dismissed accordingly. File be consigned to records.'
2. This order was passed on 12-8-1994 and it is against this order that this Letters Patent Appeal is filed.
3. Today the appellants and their counsel are absent.
4. At the out-set it is seen by perusal of the order-sheets that this matter has been pending for the last two years, for consideration of admission of the appeal.
Secondly, it is seen that the office should have considered as to whether an appeal would lie as against such an order, as has been passed by the learned single Judge while dealing with the revision petition.
5. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules reads as under:--
'And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature from the judgment (not being a judgment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of power of superintendence) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, consistently with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is fit one for appeal but that the right of appeal from other judgments of the Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to us. Our heirs or successors and be heard by our Board of Judicial Advisors for report to us,'
6. In view of the foregoing Clause 12, extracted above, it abundantly made clear that no Letters Patent Appeal lies as against disposal of the revision petition under Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Another question that may crop up for consideration is whether, though during the course of order learned single Judge held that the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, not being satisfied with the cause shown, the learned single Judge did not say that as a consequence of dismissal of application for condonation of delay, the revision petition be also dismissed. He did not say it in so many words, but nevertheless the consequence is the same. If the Court, while considering the cause to condone the delay, holds it against the petitioner, the consequential result is that since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, the revision petition also stands dismissed for the same reason. In that view of the matter, if the revision petition, by virtue of the order made by the learned single Judge is held to be dismissed, whether such an order can be challenged in a L.P.A.
8. It is needless to say that for the reasons stated above, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules prohibits exercise of power to entertain a Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore, this L.P.A. is not maintainable. Accordingly it is rejected.