Holding

The Lahore Letters Patent are applicable to Himachal Pradesh and an appeal under Clause 9/10 is maintainable, overruling the High Court’s view.

Summary

R.J. Shah appealed to the Himachal Pradesh High Court against a judgment of a single judge of that court, invoking the Letters Patent of the former Lahore High Court under Clause 9/10. The High Court held that the Lahore Letters Patent did not apply to Himachal Pradesh, that no appeal under those clauses was maintainable, and that the order was not covered by Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC, consequently dismissing the appeal. The appellant contended that the legislative history of the Letters Patent and subsequent statutes (Delhi High Court Act, State of Himachal Pradesh Act) made the appeal permissible. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had ignored the precedent set in Jugal Kishore Paliwal v. S. Sat Jit Singh (which overruled the earlier Hafiz Mohd Said decision) and therefore set aside the High Court's order. The matter was remanded to the Himachal Pradesh High Court to reconsider the appeal in light of Jugal Kishore and related authorities.

Issues considered

Whether the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court are applicable to the Himachal Pradesh High Court for intra‑court appeals under Clause 9/10.
Whether an order of a single judge exercising ordinary original jurisdiction is appealable to a Division Bench under the Letters Patent or under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC.
Whether the High Court correctly applied the legislative history and subsequent statutes (Delhi High Court Act, State of Himachal Pradesh Act) in determining the availability of the appeal.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 43 Rule 1, s. Section 104
Delhi High Court Act, 1966s. 10, s. 5
Indian Independence Act, 1947s. Section 9

Subjects

Letters PatentIntra‑court appealHigh Court jurisdictionOrder 43Civil Procedure CodeDelhi High Court ActHimachal Pradesh High CourtLegislative historyPart‑C State

Judgment

~
A R.J. SHAH AND CO. f-
v.
. H.P. STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JULY 19, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Letters Patent Appeal in Himachal Pradesh High Court-Appeal to f-
Division Bench against order of single Judge lies as ultimate succession of
Lahore High Court from Himachal Pradesh area-Code of Civil Procedure,
c 1908-043 r.1

The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is about
the sustainability of the High Court's view in the impugned order that the
Letters Patent in Lahore Court was not applicable in the State of Himacbal ..
D Pradesh an~ hence no appeal either under Clause 9 or Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent was maintainable in the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the
-+
impugned order was not covered by 0.43 r. l CPC and hence no appeal
against the said order would lie to the Division Bench of High Court.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: The High Court has not noticed the view expressed in Jugal
Kishore 's* case. It wrongly relied upon full Bench decision in Hafiz Mohd**
which was over-ruled. The order of the High Court is set aside and the matter
is remanded to it to decide the controversy afresh in the light of Jugal Kishore 's
case. (Para 3) (418-G-H)
F ,==l
P.S. Sathappan (dead) by Lrs. \'. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Ors., 12004111
SCC 672 and Jugal Kishore Paliwal v. S. Sat Jit Singh and Anr. * 11984) 1
sec 358, relied on.
University of Delhi v. Hafiz Mohd. Said** AIR (1972) Delhi 102; ILR
G (1976) 5 H.P. 551: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ajit Kumar, ILR (1976) HP
24 and Asa Singh Kochhar and Anr. v. Darshan Singh Kochhar and Ors., ILR
(1976) 5 H.P. 551, referred to.
r ,.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5593 of 1997.

H 416
R.J. SHAHv. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD[PASAYAT,J.J 417

' -.i..: From the Judgment & Order dated 28. 10.1994 of the High Court of A
Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in LP.A. No. 8of1994.

WITH

C.A. No. 5594of1997.
B
Jaideep Gupta, A.Y. Chitale, S.A. Chitake, Sujeeta Srivasatava, Madhuip
Singhal, Aditay Vikas Singh, Nimeka Jha and S. Janani for the Appellant.

Maninder Singh, Pratibha: M. Singh. Gaurav Sharma. Rahul Ajatshatru
and E.C. Agrawala for the Respondent.
1c
\
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. In the present appeals, an interesting
question is raised about the sustainability of the High Court's view in the
'· impugned order that the Letters Patent in Lahore Court was not maintainable
as no appeal either under Clause 9 or Clause I 0 of the Letters Patent was D
maintainable in the High Court and the impugned order was not covered by
Order 43 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'). The
High Cou.rt held as follows:

"In view of the discussion aforesaid, the Letters Patent of High
Court of Judicature at Lahore has no application in the State of E
Himachal Pradesh and hence no appeal either under Clause 9 or
Clause JO of the said Letters Patent would lie to this High Court. The
appeal against the judgment of a single Judge of th is Court exercising
ordinary original civil jurisdiction will, however, lie to a Division Bench
of the High Court by virtue of Section I 0 of the Delhi Act. This p
appellate jurisdiction is available against decrees and appellable orders
covered under Section I 04 read with Order 43 Rule I of the Code of
Civil Procedure. In the instant case, the impugned order is admittedly
not covered by any part of Order 43 Rule I of the Code of Civil
Procedure and hence no appeal against the said order would lie to the
Division Bench of this Court. G
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal fails and is dismissed."

2. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the parties referred to
the legislative history of the Letters Patent: Prior to 1919 the Chief Court of
H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A Punjab was at Lahore. The Letters Patent was promulgated on 21.3.1919. The
establishment and constitution of the High Court of Punjab as done under
Clause I 0 provided for intra Court appeal. On 11.8.1947 the High Court
(Punjab Order), 1947 under Section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947
was promulgated. The Punjab High Court was constituted and included Delhi.
B Power exercised by erstwhile Punjab High Court was to be exercised by the
High Court of East Punjab. Power of Letters Patent continued to operate at
Punjab High Court. Himachal Pradesh was 'Part-C' State. It was under the
Punjab High Court. Subsequently, separate Court of Judicial Commission in
various 'Part-C' States started functioning. On 26.1.1950 the Judicial
Commission was declared as the High Court by the Judicial Commission's
C Court (Declaration of High Court), 1950. On 1.7.1954 two 'Part-C' States
amalgamated were Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur by the New States Act,
1954. There was one Judicial Commission for the State of Himachal Pradesh.
On l. l l. l 956 'Part-C' States were abolished by the Constitution (7th
Amendment) Act. Accordingly, the erstwhile Part-C State became the State of
Himachal Pradesh. On l.5. l 967 the Delhi (High Court) Act, 1966 came into
D force. The jurisdiction extended over Himachal Pradesh by carving out Delhi
and Himachal Pradesh from the original Punjab High Court. Under Section 5,
the powers exercised by the Punjab High Court came to be exercised by the
Delhi High Court in its territories including Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly,
Judicial Commission, Himachal Pradesh came to be abolished by the Delhi
E High Court Act. On 25 .12.1970 by the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970
Delhi High Court ceased to have jurisdiction over Himachal Pradesh and the
Himachal Pradesh High Court came into existence. Section 23 of the Act made
this position clear.

3. It is to be noted that the. foundation of the impugned judgment is a
F Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court which decided that if order of the
learned Single Judge is in its ordinary original jurisdiction. no Letters Patent
would lie to the Division Bench of the High Court. (See University of Delhi
v. Hafiz Afohd. Said AIR (l 972) Delhi 102). The Division Bench in the impugned
judgment ought to have followed Jugal Kishore Paliwal v. S. Sat Jit Singh
and Anr., {1984] l SCC 358 and two earlier decisions in Asha Kochar's case
G ILR (l 976) 5 H.P. 551 and State ofHimachal Pradesh v. Ajit Kumar, ILR (l 976)
HP 24. This Court in Jugal Kishore 's case (supra) expressly over-ruled the
view in Hafiz Mohd Said's case (supra). The High Court has not noticed the r
view expressed in Jugal Kishore 's case (supra). We, therefore, set aside the
order of the High Court, remand the matter to it to decide the controversy
H afresh in the light of Jugal Kishore 's case (supra) and also to take note of
R.J. SHAH v. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [PASAYA T, J.] 419

..i, view expressed by this Court in P.S. Sathappan (dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra A
Bank Ltd and Ors., [2004] 11 SCC 672.

4. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

D.G. Appeals disposed of.

~·