S.100A Of CPC Overrides Letters Patent, No Further Appeal Lies Against Order Of Single Judge In Appellate Jurisdiction: J&K High Court

The Court ruled 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 under the Letters Patent jurisdiction.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar made these observations while dismissing two Letters Patent Appeals filed by a woman who had initially been awarded compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident but found the amount substantially reduced on appeal before a Single Judge.

Case Background:

The appellant, Attiqa Bano, aged 38 suffered permanent disablement in a road accident and had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation. The Tribunal, awarded her ₹5,45,600/- with 7.5% annual interest, effective from the date of filing.

Dissatisfied, she filed MAC Appeal seeking enhancement. The National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, filed another appeal challenging the award. The Single Judge of the High Court clubbed both appeals and, by a common judgment reduced the awarded compensation to ₹2,33,200/-, while retaining the same rate of interest.

The aggrieved appellant approached the Division Bench by filing Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which were met with a preliminary objection regarding maintainability under Section 100-A of the CPC.

Court's Observations: Precedence of Section 100-A Over Letters Patent

Framing the central legal issue, the Division Bench posed the question,

“Whether an intra-Court appeal under Clause 12 of Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, whether against an original or appellate decree or order passed by the Courts subordinate to the High Court?”

The Court examined the scope of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which ordinarily permits an appeal from a judgment of a Single Judge. However, it emphasized that Section 100-A CPC, introduced by amendment, explicitly bars such appeals once the matter has been adjudicated by a Single Judge in appellate capacity.

The court explained,

“From the plain reading of Section 100-A, it is evident that the 'non-obstante' clause i.e., 'notwithstanding' gives Section 100-A overriding effect over the Letters Patent of this Court. It establishes the precedence of Section 100-A over Clause 12 of Letters Patent to the extent of conflict. And it clearly provides 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 from the Judgment and decree of such Single Judge.”

The Court further held that this prohibition extends even to judgments rendered under special enactments, such as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989.

“This is so even where LPA is preferred against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of special enactment like Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, in the case on hand.”, the court underscored.

The Court noted that the Tribunal's award is deemed a decree in terms of Section 169(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, making the subsequent proceedings before the Single Judge an exercise of appellate jurisdiction over a decree. Consequently, Section 100-A's bar squarely applied.

“Be that as it is, the fact remains that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge, deciding the appeals against an original decree/order passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, in view of clear provisions of Section 100-A, further appeal is not maintainable.”, the court underlined.

Summing up, the Court held,

“An intra-Court appeal under Clause 12 of Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction against an original or appellate decree or order passed by the Courts subordinate to the High Court.”

On these grounds, both Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

APPEARANCES:

For Appellants: Mr. A. A. Wani, Advocate

For Respondents: Ms. Anisa, Advocate vice Mr. N. A. Dendru, Advocate Mr. Aatir Javid Kawoosa, Advocate

Case Title: Attiqa Bano Vs National Insurance Company Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 219

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment