Bal Mukand and ors. Vs. the Punjab State and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Writ Application No. 387 of 1955|
|Judge|| Kapur and; Bishan Narain, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1957P& H300|
|Acts||Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Sections 12; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 6|
|Appellant||Bal Mukand and ors.|
|Respondent||The Punjab State and ors.|
|Appellant Advocate|| J.N. Seth, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate|| S.M. Sikri, Adv. General and; H.L. Sarin, Adv.|
.....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 intact,.....bishan narain, j. 1. one of the points raised in this petition is that the deputy custodian general could not pass any order on the revision pending before him after 24-3-1955 in view of section 12 of the displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act 1954. this point is being raised very frequently in this court and i think it will be convenient if it is decided by a larger bench. let the case be placed before hon'ble chief justice for orders.
Bishan Narain, J.
1. One of the points raised in this petition is that the Deputy Custodian general could not pass any order on the revision pending before him after 24-3-1955 in view of Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954. This point is being raised very frequently in this Court and I think it will be convenient if it is decided by a larger Bench. Let the case be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice for orders.