https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171344 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. en-us Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171344 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171344