Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Ramzan Dar & Ors vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors on 30 October, 2024
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Puneet Gupta
Serial No. 37
Supplementary Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA 285/2024
In[RFA 9/2023]
Mohammad Ramzan Dar & Ors. ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Khan Sameer, Advocate with
Mr. Zahid Khan, Advocate
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
30.10.2024
1. This appeal, under Clause 12 of letters patent, arises from the order
and judgment dated 27th September, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court ("the Appellate Court") in RFA No. 10/2023 titled "Abdul Salam
Dar Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors."
2. Mr. Ilyas Laway, learned counsel for the respondents, raises a
preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this appeal. He argues that
Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) clearly and unequivocally
provides that no appeal shall lie against an order passed by the learned Single
Judge in an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Letters Patent of any High
Court or any other law in force.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record, it is necessary to first set out the provisions of Section 100-A herein
"[100A. 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.]"
4. From plain reading of Section 100-A it is crystal clear that, when a
Single Judge hears and decides an appeal from an original or appellate decree
or order, no further appeal shall lie from such judgment or decree before the
Division Bench. The phrase "notwithstanding anything contained in Section
100-A" clearly gives Section 100-A CPC an overriding effect over any contrary
provision in the Letters Patent of the High Court or in any instrument or law for
the time being in force. In short, it can be said that an order passed by Single
Bench hearing an appeal against original or appellate decree or order, an intra-
court appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent before Division Bench is not
permissible, the contrary provision in Letters Patent notwithstanding. The
provisions of Section 100-A thus override the provisions of the Letters Patent
to the aforesaid extent.
5. We, therefore, find substance in the preliminary objection raised by
Mr. Ilyas Laway, learned GA appearing for the respondents. This appeal is,
thus, held not maintainable.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file the review petition before
the learned Single Judge. Statement of learned counsel for the appellant is
taken on record.
7. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
(PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
30.10.2024
"Mir Arif"
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
