Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Raj Kumar Gupta And Anr vs Bank Of India And Anr on 6 June, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1471-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 26.05.2025
Pronounced on 06.06.2025
CJ Court
Case: LPA No. 136/2023
CM No. 4875/2023
CM No. 4876/2023
Raj Kumar Gupta and Anr. ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Parveen Kapahi, Advocate
v/s
Bank of India and Anr. .... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per Oswal-J
1. In a suit titled “Raj Kumar Gupta vs. Bank of India and Anr.”
pending before the court of learned 1st Additional District Judge,
Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”), an
application filed by the appellant for grant of interim injunction
in terms of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC came to be rejected by the
learned trial court vide order dated 09.05.2023. The order dated
09.05.2023 was assailed by the appellant through the medium of
an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC before the learned
Single Judge of this Court and vide order dated 21.07.2023, the
2
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1471-DB
LPA No. 136/2023
learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the
appellant.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated
21.07.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant under
Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel
for the respondent in respect of the maintainability of this intra-
court appeal on the ground that in view of bar contained in
Section 100A CPC, the instant appeal is not maintainable.
4. Mr. Parveen Kapahi, learned counsel for the appellant, has
argued that the appeal is maintainable in view of the judgment of
coordinate Bench of this Court in „Doulat Ram and Anr. Vs.
Roop Chand and others‘, 2021(4) JKJ(HC) 165 and that of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in „Shyam Sel and Power
Limited and Another vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited’
(2022), 3 S.C.R.1175.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled
„Mohd Saud and Anr. Vs. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz and
others‘, 2010 (13) SCC 517, and „Kamal Kumar Dutta vs.
Ruby General Hospital Ltd’,2006 (7) SCC 613, to submit that
where the learned Single Judge decides an appeal arising from
original or appellate decree or order, then no further appeal shall
3
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1471-DB
LPA No. 136/2023
lie from that judgment, decree or order, as such, this intra court
appeal is not maintainable.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The moot question that arises for consideration of this Court is
whether the intra-court appeal in terms of Section 12 of the
Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by the
learned Single Judge while exercising the appellate jurisdiction.
8. To answer the above-mentioned question, it is imperative to
extract Section 100-A CPC, which is as under:
“100-A. No further appeal in certain cases.–
Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent
for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of
law or in any other law for the time being in force, 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 from the judgment and decree of
such Single Judge.”
9. A perusal of Section 100-A CPC would reveal that where a
Single Judge of a High Court decides any appeal from an original
or appellate decree or order, no further appeal shall lie from the
judgment and decree of such Single Judge.
10. In this context, it would be appropriate to take note of judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd Saud and Anr. Vs.
Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz and others (supra). In this case, the
first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC came to be
preferred before learned Single Judge of the High Court, which
was decided on 06.08.2008.The said judgment of the learned
Single Judge was assailed through the medium of Letters Patent
Appeal, but it was held to be not maintainable by the Division
4
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1471-DB
LPA No. 136/2023
Bench of the High Court. The said order was assailed before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
of India while upholding the order passed by the High Court held
that the intra-court appeal is not maintainable against the order
passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising appellate
jurisdiction. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
13. While at first glance this argument may appear plausible
but when we go deeper into it, we will realize that it has no
merit. It would be strange to hold that while two appeals
will be maintainable against interlocutory orders of a
District Judge, only one appeal will be maintainable against
a final judgment of the District Judge.
14. It may be noted that there seems to be some apparent
contradiction in Section 100-A as amended in 2002. While
in one part of Section 100-A it is stated “where any appeal
from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and
decided by a Single Judge of a High Court”, in the
following part it is stated “no further appeal shall lie from
the judgment and decree of such Single Judge”. Thus while
one part of Section 100-A refers to an order, which to our
mind would include even an interlocutory order, the later
part of the Section mentions judgment and decree.
20. To resolve this conflict we have to adopt a purposive
interpretation. The whole purpose of introducing Section
100-A was to reduce the number of appeals as the public in
India was being harassed by the numerous appeals provided
in the statute. If we look at the matter from that angle it will
immediately become apparent that the LPA in question was
not maintainable because if it is held to be maintainable
then the result will be that against an interlocutory order of
the District Judge there may be two appeals, first to the
learned Single Judge and then to the Division Bench of the
High Court, but against a final judgment of the District
Judge there can be only one appeal. This in our opinion
would be strange, and against the very purpose of object of
Section 100-A, that is to curtail the number of appeals.”
11. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are
not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
12. In Shayam Sel Power Limited and Anr. (supra), the learned Single
Judge was in seisin of an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC
5
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1471-DB
LPA No. 136/2023
and the learned Single Judge had not passed any order in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction. So far as the judgment passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court in Daulat Ram and anr. Vs. Roop
Chand and others (supra) is concerned, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC for re-
admission of the appeal. The intra-court appeal was entertained in
respect of an order, which was not passed in exercise of appellate
jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge. This observation has been
made in para-32 of the judgment.
13. In view of the above, it is held that when an appeal is heard and
decided by the learned Single Judge of a High Court against original
or appellate decree or order, the intra-court appeal would not be
maintainable against that order. As such, the question is answered
accordingly.
14. For what has been said and discussed above, we do not find any merit
in this appeal, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
06.06.2025
Karam Chand/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
[ad_1]
Source link