Civil Procedure Code governs Letters Patent appeal procedure, but review is unavailable against Bench judgment under Letters Patent jurisdiction.

The Civil Procedure Code applies to the procedure in a Letters Patent appeal before a High Court Bench, because Section 117 extends the Code to chartered High Courts and the appellate process is governed by Order 41 read with Order 49 Rule 3 except where excluded. However, review does not lie against a Bench judgment in such an appeal, because Section 114 confines review to judgments rendered in exercise of jurisdiction derived from the Code. A Letters Patent appeal Bench acts under jurisdiction conferred by the Letters Patent, not by the Code, so procedural application of the Code does not create a review right.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the hearing and disposal of a Letters Patent appeal by a Bench of a High Court. (ii) Whether a review lies against a judgment delivered by a Bench in a Letters Patent appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the hearing and disposal of a Letters Patent appeal by a Bench of a High Court.

Analysis: Section 117 of the Code applies the Code to chartered High Courts, subject to the express exceptions in the Code itself. The procedure governing appeals before the High Court, including the hearing and delivery of judgment in appeals governed by the Letters Patent, is regulated by Order 41 read with Order 49 Rule 3 of the Code, except where specifically excluded. The mere source of the appellate right in the Letters Patent does not prevent the procedural provisions of the Code from governing the appeal.

Conclusion: The Code of Civil Procedure applies to the procedure in a Letters Patent appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether a review lies against a judgment delivered by a Bench in a Letters Patent appeal.

Analysis: The majority held that Section 114 of the Code permits review only where the judgment sought to be reviewed is one made in exercise of jurisdiction derived from the Code. A Letters Patent appeal Bench derives its jurisdiction from the Letters Patent, not from the Code, even though the Code governs the procedure. The words "by this Code" in Section 114 were treated as material and as excluding judgments rendered under a jurisdiction conferred by another law. The contrary view, which relied on the executable decree drawn up under the Code, was rejected as confusing procedure with jurisdiction.

Conclusion: No review lies against a judgment delivered by a Bench in a Letters Patent appeal.

Final Conclusion: The authoritative view is that, although the Civil Procedure Code governs the procedure in a Letters Patent appeal, Section 114 does not confer a right of review against the judgment of the appellate Bench, because that judgment is rendered under jurisdiction derived from the Letters Patent and not from the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The right of review under Section 114 extends only to judgments rendered in the exercise of jurisdiction derived from the Code, and not to judgments delivered in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by the Letters Patent, even if the procedural framework of the Code applies.

---