Skip to content


The Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Jullundur and anr. Vs. Johri Mall Karori Mall - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal Nos. 284 of 1958 and 375 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1961P& H208
ActsEast Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - Sections 17, 36 and 42; East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) (Amendment) Act, 1960 - Sections 42
AppellantThe Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Jullundur and anr.
RespondentJohri Mall Karori Mall
Appellant Advocate S.M. Sikri, Adv. General and; N.L. Saluja, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Rajindar Sachar, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredKishan Partap Singh v. Bhagat Singh
Excerpt:
.....the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains.....orderbishan narain and i.d. dua, jj.1. the learned counsel for both sides state that the point involved in this case arises also in kishan partap singh v. bhagat singh etc. (l. p. a. 375 of 1959) which has been admitted to f. b. they pray that this l. p. a. may also be heard with l. p. a. 375 of 1959. we order accordingly.
Judgment:
ORDER

Bishan Narain and I.D. Dua, JJ.

1. The learned Counsel for both sides state that the point involved in this case arises also in Kishan Partap Singh v. Bhagat Singh etc. (L. P. A. 375 of 1959) which has been admitted to F. B. They pray that this L. P. A. may also be heard with L. P. A. 375 of 1959. We order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //