Rajesh Mandanlal Anand ... vs Rakesh Madanlal Anand And Ant
2021 Latest Caselaw 740 j&K

\

NARESH KUMAR \
2021.07.16 16:21

 

 

Sr, No, 228
(Supplementary Cause list)

Pee re! nena ane nana ae cee awn

 

HIGHECOURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
AT JAMMU

LPA No. 90/2020
CM Nos. 4664/2020 &
4669/2020
Rajesh Mandanlal Anand »od\ppellant(syPetitioner(s)
Through: Present in person.
Vs
Rakesh Madanlal Anand and Ant, oe Respondent(s)

Through:

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

ORDER

16 07.2021

PER: THAKUR-J

1. A single bench of this court by virtue of judgment and order dated 5.2.2019 dismissed the civil revision petition bearing CR No. 3 of 2019. In the said petition, the petitioner-appellant herein had challenged the order dated 28.1.2019 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by the defendants/respondents herein for leave to defend was accepted.

2, Against the order, dismissing the revision petition, a review petition was preferred, which, too came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 03.03.2020, which now has been questioned by way of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3, We are, however, of the opinion that the present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable in view of Clause 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Letters Patent, which reads as under:

"12, And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lic to the

said High Court of Judicature from the judgment (not being a

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in

4. Ona perusal of the aforementioned clause, ity thus, becomes clear that a

Letters Patent "Appeal would. not. lie if the order was passed inter alia by

Baa

ge af appellate p af he

anti High Cost, anal nat being an aiden mads hy fe kere? af

respeed af gp deepoe at order made iy deer

fueladietion hy a Gverd sabject fa Het seperlatamleses

povisional hirkalletion and nod Relig a senfeaes ap oniler jiincedl wr made in the express af power af cmperintendencey af a8 Jiclge of the sald High Canrt of ane dredge of say Pivishia Cond and that sofwttheanding saiptdigg herete hetore provided an appeal aball He to the sald iligh Court frani & fudge af

any Divislon Court, conslatenily with the provisions af He Cll

judpmont af ome dialge of the aiid High Court ov ane

Provedure Code, mide in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a deered ar arder nude ip the exercise af appellate junisdiction by « Court aubject iW the seperisiendenee af the said High Court where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case iv & GC one for appesl; hut 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 Hebe or Successors and be heard by our Board of Judicial Advisers for report to Us."

ihe High Couti in its. revisional ji ctio on.

5. It, therefore, pre- supposes, 'that if the: Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable against an order passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the learned single Judge of this court, much less would an appeal be maintainable if the order came to be passed in a review petition, which

also has its genesis in the revisional order passed by the learned Single

fudge of the High Court.

6 Be that as it may, we hold that the present Letters Patent Appeal is not

maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.

NARESH KUMAR 2021.07.16 164 I attest to the adéLaadia Bnd

integrity :of this fear yoal

Nearest:

frnce lle a (Dhiraj Singh staan

Judge Judge