GEETA DEVI & ORS.versusPURAN RAM RAIGAR & ANR.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 570
- Decided
- 6 September 2010
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
An intra‑court appeal against the order of a single High Court judge in such matters is not maintainable under Section 100‑A of the CPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Geeta Devi & Ors., challenged the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court's order dismissing their appeal against a single High Court judge's decision that had rejected a miscellaneous appeal arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The central issue was whether such an intra‑court appeal is maintainable under Section 100‑A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which bars further appeals in certain cases. The Supreme Court held that Section 100‑A precludes any further appeal against the single judge’s order, irrespective of the High Court Rules or the Letters Patent. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal does not bar the petitioners from filing a Special Leave Petition directly against the single judge’s judgment, subject to the usual exceptions such as limitation. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal against the order of a single High Court judge arising out of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award is maintainable under Section 100‑A, CPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100-A
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Subjects
Judgment
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 969
GEETA DEVI & ORS. A
v.
PURAN RAM RAIGAR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7390 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 6, 2010
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s.100-A - No further appeal in certain cases - Appeal c
against order of single Judge of High Court arising out of
award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Maintainability of
- HELD: Division Bench of High Court rightly held that the
appeal would not lie in view of s. 100-A - However, dismissal
of the instant appeal by Supreme Court will not prevent the 0
appellants from filing an SLP directly against the judgment
of single Judge of the High Court, if so advised, subject to all
ju~t exception including limitation - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 136 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E
7390 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.7.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.
Civil Special Appeal No. 10 of 2007 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal F
No. 2777 of 2003.
Mukesh Sharma (for Rameshwar Prasad Goyal) for the
Appellants.
A.K. De, R. Dwivedi (for Debasis Misra), Mohan Pandey G
for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
969 H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.
A ORDER
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.
B This Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order
dated 05th July, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.Civil Special
Appeal No. 10 of 2007.
C In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court has
rightly held that the appeal against the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 07th August, 2006 did not lie in view of
Section 100-A, CPC. The learned Single Judge had decided
the Misc. Appeal No. 2777/2003 against the award of the Motor
D Accident Claims Tribunal. In our opinion, this intra court appeal
in the High Court was not maintainable in view of Section 100-
A, CPC notwithstanding anything in the High Court Rules or the
Letters Patent to the contrary. Hence, the appeal was rightly
dismissed by the Division bench of the High Court and this
appeal is, therefore, -2- dismissed. However, dismissal of this
E appeal will not prevent the appellants from filing a S.L.P. directly
against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07th
August, 2006 dismissing the Misc. Appeal arising out of the
impugned award dated 20th September, 2003 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur in
F Claim Petition No. 177/2002, if so advised and subject to all
just exceptions including limitation. No costs.
iI I R.li\ Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.