MOHD. SAUD & ANOTHER versus DR. (MAJ.) SHAIKH MAHFOOZ & OTHERS

MOHD. SAUD & ANOTHER versus DR. (MAJ.) SHAIKH MAHFOOZ & OTHERS

After the amendment of Section 100-A CPC in 2002, a Letters Patent Appeal filed after 2002 against the judgment or order of the Single Judge of the High Court in an appeal, including appeals against interlocutory orders, is not maintainable; this interpretation curtails the number of appeals and avoids apparent contradictions in the drafting of Section 100-A.

Parties
Appellant: Mohd. Saud & Another; Respondent: Dr. (Maj.) Shaikh Mahfooz & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Full Bench Decision in Letters Patent Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal, Interpretation of Section 100 a CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Saud & Another

Appellant

Dr. (Maj.) Shaikh Mahfooz & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Full Bench Decision in Letters Patent Appeal

  1. 1 Whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable before the Division Bench against a judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court after the amendment of Section 100-A CPC in 2002

Ratio Decidendi

After the amendment of Section 100-A CPC in 2002, a Letters Patent Appeal filed after 2002 against the judgment or order of the Single Judge of the High Court in an appeal, including appeals against interlocutory orders, is not maintainable; this interpretation curtails the number of appeals and avoids apparent contradictions in the drafting of Section 100-A.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No costs awarded
  • Learned Additional District Judge directed to decide the suit expeditiously