Bhatinda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the Addl. Dist. Judge and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that 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. 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. - this being the position, poor claimants cannot be made to suffer only because of some technical ground regarding procedure according to counsel for the petitioner, is faulty. extraordinary jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked by defaulter so as to deprive needy and poor claimants from the compensation to which they are entitled to.s.s. sudhalkar, j.1. the award was passed by motor accident claims tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') against the petitioner and others. the petitioner filed an appeal over the said award but has not been able to obtain stay. the claimants are getting the award executed and in pursuance of the same recovery certificate under section 3(1) of the revenue recovery act, 1890 has been issued against the petitioner. the petitioner is challenging the recovery which is being made against him.2. after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that this petition is without merit. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the recovery is not being made in accordance with law. according to him if the property from which the recovery is to be made is in a district other than that in which the arrears accrued or sum is payable, the collector has to send a certificate to collector of that other district for recovery and according to learned counsel for the petitioner this procedure is not followed and, therefore, recovery proceedings against him are not legal.3. this does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner who has not honoured and award of the tribunal in which unfortunate widow and minor children of the deceased have not received compensation. the date of the award is 11-9-1993 and till date, the petitioner has not cared to honour the award. learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has filed an appeal against the said award but has admitted that he has not been able to obtain stay. this being the position, poor claimants cannot be made to suffer only because of some technical ground regarding procedure according to counsel for the petitioner, is faulty. extraordinary jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked by defaulter so as to deprive needy and poor claimants from the compensation to which they are entitled to.dismissed.