In a significant legal development, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has unequivocally affirmed that Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) supersedes Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, thereby barring the maintainability of any further appeal from a judgment rendered by a Single Judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. This ruling underscores the primacy of statutory provisions over customary practices and reinforces the legislative intent to streamline the appellate process.
The case at hand involved Attiqa Bano, a woman who suffered permanent disablement in a road accident. Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded her compensation amounting to ₹5,45,600 with an annual interest of 7.5%, effective from the date of filing. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Bano filed an appeal seeking enhancement. Concurrently, the National Insurance Company Limited challenged the award, leading to both appeals being consolidated. The Single Judge of the High Court, after hearing both appeals, reduced the compensation to ₹2,33,200 while maintaining the same rate of interest.
Aggrieved by the reduction, Bano approached the Division Bench by filing Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The maintainability of these appeals was contested, with a preliminary objection raised regarding their compatibility with Section 100-A of the CPC. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar, examined the issue in detail.
The Court framed the central legal 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?" In addressing this, the Court delved into the interplay between Section 100-A of the CPC and Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
Section 100-A of the CPC, introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, explicitly states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other 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." This provision was enacted to curtail the backlog of cases and expedite the judicial process by limiting the avenues for appeals.
Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, on the other hand, traditionally allows for an intra-Court appeal from a judgment of a Single Judge to a Division Bench. However, the Division Bench noted that the introduction of Section 100-A was a legislative measure that specifically curtailed the scope of Clause 12 in matters where a Single Judge has rendered a judgment in appellate jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 100-A was to override any conflicting provisions, including those in the Letters Patent, to ensure uniformity and efficiency in the appellate process.
The Division Bench further observed that the applicability of Section 100-A is not confined to appeals arising under the CPC but extends to all matters where a Single Judge exercises appellate jurisdiction, irrespective of the statute under which the appeal is filed. This interpretation aligns with the broader objective of the amendment to streamline the appellate process and reduce unnecessary delays.
In light of these considerations, the Court concluded that the Letters Patent Appeals filed by Bano were not maintainable. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, thereby upholding the Single Judge's decision and reinforcing the primacy of statutory provisions over customary practices in matters of appellate jurisdiction.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for the judicial landscape in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. It clarifies the applicability of Section 100-A of the CPC in the region, aligning it with the legislative intent to streamline the appellate process. The decision also serves as a precedent for future cases, providing clarity on the interplay between statutory provisions and traditional practices in the realm of appellate jurisdiction.
In conclusion, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and legislative intent in the judicial process. By affirming the overriding effect of Section 100-A of the CPC over Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring a more efficient and streamlined appellate process, thereby contributing to the overall goal of expediting justice delivery.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.