Section 100-A CPC bars further intra-court appeal after a Single Judge's appellate judgment; interlocutory matters rarely warrant Article 136 interference.

Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was construed purposively to bar a further Letters Patent Appeal after a Single Judge decides an appeal, including an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1. The Court held that allowing another intra-court appeal would defeat the statutory object of reducing successive appeals, particularly in matters arising from interlocutory orders. On the Article 136 issue, the Court reiterated that interlocutory matters do not ordinarily justify Supreme Court interference and found no basis to intervene. The challenge accordingly failed and the appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Letters Patent Appeal lay against the judgment of a Single Judge in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in view of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the Single Judge's decision arising from an interlocutory order.

Issue (i): Whether a Letters Patent Appeal lay against the judgment of a Single Judge in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in view of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The amended Section 100-A was read as a provision intended to reduce successive appeals. The apparent drafting inconsistency between references to an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order and the words "judgment and decree" was resolved by purposive interpretation. The Court held that permitting a further intra-court appeal in such a case would defeat the statutory object, particularly because it would allow two appeals from an interlocutory order while restricting appeals from final judgments. The provision was therefore construed as barring a further Letters Patent Appeal after a Single Judge decides an appeal.

Conclusion: A Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the Single Judge's decision arising from an interlocutory order.

Analysis: The underlying order was interlocutory, and the appeal before the Single Judge retained that character in substance, even though the Single Judge's judgment was final in form. The Court reiterated that interference under Article 136 is not ordinarily warranted in interlocutory matters and found no reason to exercise such jurisdiction in the case.

Conclusion: No interference was called for and the appeals were rejected on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 curtails further intra-court appeals after a Single Judge decides an appeal, and that interlocutory matters do not ordinarily justify interference under Article 136.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be construed purposively to bar a further appeal against a Single Judge's appellate judgment, as the statute is designed to curtail multiple layers of appeal.

---