Skip to content


i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Bhatia Brothers and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetter Patent Appeal Nos. 336 and 337 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1979P& H191
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 41, Rule 5
Appellanti.T.C. Ltd.
RespondentBhatia Brothers and ors.
Cases ReferredFaqir Chand v. The Financial Commr.
Excerpt:
.....of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal,..........1977, stands concluded against the appellants by the division bench judgment of this court in faqir chand v. the financial commr., punjab, 80 pun lr 357: (air 1978 punj & har 269).2. it is wholly unnecessary to advert to the facts in any great detail. it would suffice to mention that the respondents m/s. bhatia brothers and others preferred regular first appeal no. 907 of 1977 against the judgment and decree passed against them by the senior subordinate judge, ludhiana. therein c. m. no. 983 c-i of 1977 was moved by them under order 41, rule 5, c.p.c. praying that during the pendency of the appeal in the high court, the execution of the decree be stayed. the learned single judge by his order under appeal acceded to the prayer for stay on the condition that the respondents should.....
Judgment:

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

1. The very maintainability of these Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 337 and 336 of 1977 admitted to a hearing by the Full Bench on the 21st of Sep., 1977, stands concluded against the appellants by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Faqir Chand v. The Financial Commr., Punjab, 80 Pun LR 357: (AIR 1978 Punj & Har 269).

2. It is wholly unnecessary to advert to the facts in any great detail. It would suffice to mention that the respondents M/s. Bhatia Brothers and others preferred Regular First Appeal No. 907 of 1977 against the judgment and decree passed against them by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana. Therein C. M. No. 983 C-I of 1977 was moved by them under Order 41, Rule 5, C.P.C. praying that during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the execution of the decree be stayed. The learned Single Judge by his order under appeal acceded to the prayer for stay on the condition that the respondents should furnish adequate security regarding the decretal amount to the satisfaction of the Executing Court within a period of one month. It was further directed that in case they fall to furnish the security, the stay order shall stand vacated.

3. It is manifest that the order under appeal is merely a stay order on terms and conditions specified therein and involves no determination of any right or liability which may ultimately affect the merits of the controversy. That being so, the matter is obviously covered by Faqir Chand's case (AIR 1978 Punj & Har 269) (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that against such a stay order no letters patent appeal is competent.

4. In passing it may be mentioned that no challenge or criticism was levelled against the ratio of Faqir Chand's case before us. Equally it deserves recalling that the judgment therein was rendered subsequent to the admission of the present appeals. Again it is the admitted position that the security has not been furnished by the judgment-debtors within the time prescribed and consequently the conditional stay granted by the order under appeal now stands vacated.

5. Following the decision in Faqir Chand's case (AIR 1978 Punj & Har 269)(supra), we dismiss these letters patent appeals whilst leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

6. Appeals dismissed.


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