PATNA, India, April 16 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on March 16:

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5668 of 2013. The said writ petition was filed, inter alia, assailing the order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III in Title Suit No. 127 of 2009 by which the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The office has pointed out objection regarding the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly it has been placed under the heading "For Orders on Office Notes".

3. A coordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 138 of 2011 while dealing with the identical objection raised by the Stamp reporter has categorically held that no intra Court appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent shall lie from a judgment or order made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction or one made in exercise of power of superintendence. It would be pertinent to quote the relevant paragraph for the needful.

"The learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition after considering the matter on merits. The first issue is whether an appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of this Court would lie against the judgment of an order of the Writ Court which could be passed only in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A mere look at Clause- 10 of the Letters Patent makes it clear that no appeal shall lie from a judgment or order made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction or one made in exercise of power of superintendence which was earlier under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act and is now available only under Article 227 of the Constitution."

4. It would also be relevant to observe here that there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5668 of 2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heir, reported in, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489, has observed that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity and rendering substantial justice should not be rendered at the cost of opposite party. The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:

"24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM4MDAjMjAyNSMxI04=-AsHe13tNOX4=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.