2003 (4) TMI 587 - HC - Benami Property

Limitation on Letters Patent Appeal against Single Judge Decrees Post-2002

Parshotam Dass Versus State of Haryana

The court held that Letters Patent Appeal would not lie against judgments and decrees passed by a Single Judge after 1.7.2002, arising from original or ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or orderRs.2. Whether the Letters Patent Appeals filed before 1.7.2002 are liable to be dealt with and decided in accordance with amended Section 100-A of the C.P.C.Rs.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by a Single JudgeThe primary contention revolves around whether amendments to Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the 1999 and 2002 Acts preclude the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals against judgments and decrees passed by a Single Judge in appeals arising from original or appellate decrees or orders. The amendments aimed to expedite case disposal by curtailing intra-court appeals.The court examined the language of Section 100A as substituted by the 1999 and 2002 Acts. The 1999 Act included writs, directions, or orders under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution, whereas the 2002 Act did not. The court noted that the legislative intent behind these amendments was to eliminate further appeals in specific cases to reduce the judiciary's workload.The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India* (2003), which supported the view that no intra-court appeal should be allowed from judgments and decrees passed by Single Judges in appeals from original or appellate decrees or orders. The rationale was that such appeals unnecessarily increase the judicial workload and that litigants would not suffer prejudice from this restriction.Conclusion on Issue 1:The court concluded that no Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the judgment and decree passed by a Single Judge arising from an original or appellate decree or order after 1.7.2002. The answer to the first question was in the negative.Issue 2: Applicability of amended Section 100A to Letters Patent Appeals filed before 1.7.2002The second issue addressed whether the amendments to Section 100A should be applied retrospectively to Letters Patent Appeals filed before the amendments came into effect on 1.7.2002. The court examined the principles of statutory interpretation and the presumption against retrospective application of legislation affecting substantive rights unless explicitly stated or necessarily implied.The court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in *R. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by L.Rs.* and *Shyam Sunder and Ors. v. Ram Kumar and Anr.*, which emphasized that substantive rights, such as the right of appeal, are generally not affected by subsequent legislation unless explicitly stated. The court noted that the right of appeal is a substantive right and that there is a strong presumption against interpreting statutes to have retrospective effects that would take away vested rights.Conclusion on Issue 2:The court held that the amendments to Section 100A of the CPC by the 2002 Act do not apply to Letters Patent Appeals filed before 1.7.2002. These appeals should be decided as if the amendments had not come into force. Thus, the answer to the second question was that Letters Patent Appeals filed before 1.7.2002 are not subject to the amended Section 100A of the CPC.Final Order:The court directed that the case be listed before the Letters Patent Bench for decision on merits, as the instant Letters Patent Appeal was held to be maintainable.