Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a money suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 7,865/7/- due on account of sale of grains and Rs. 1,512/19/- as interest. The defendant admitted purchase of grain but denied stipulation of interest, contending that he had borrowed Rs. 6,000 from the plaintiff for the marriage of grand-daughters at the rate of 12 annas per hundred per month. The trial court decreed the suit after considering evidence. In first appeal to the High Court, a Single Judge allowed the appeal and reversed the trial court's decree, observing that the plaintiff's witnesses were unreliable and no other evidence supported the claim. Against this judgment, the plaintiff preferred a Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court. Due to a sharp conflict of decisions on the scope of Clause 10, the question was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench, by majority of Narasimham C.J. and R. K. Choudhary J., held that findings of fact by the Single Judge are binding and cannot be reopened in a Letters Patent appeal, following Ramsarup Singh v. Muneshwar Singh. U. N. Sinha J. dissented, taking a view consistent with the consensus of other High Courts and the Supreme Court. On appeal by certificate, the Supreme Court considered whether a Bench of the High Court in a Letters Patent appeal from a Single Judge in a first appeal could consider both facts and law or was limited by Section 100 CPC. The Court noted that Clause 10 of the Patna Letters Patent is analogous to Clause 15 of other Chartered High Courts. It held that the limitations imposed by Sections 100 and 101 CPC cannot apply because a Single Judge of the High Court is not a court subordinate to the High Court. The Court relied on Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. and an unreported five-judge Bench decision in Alapati Kasi Viswanathan v. A. Sivarama Krishnayya, which directly held that a Letters Patent appeal from a Single Judge in a first appeal is not exactly equivalent to a second appeal under Section 100 CPC and that the Letters Patent Bench may review findings of fact, though generally slow to disturb concurrent findings. The Supreme Court also approved various High Court decisions to the same effect and overruled Ramsarup Singh. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court and remanded the matter for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Letters Patent Appeal - Scope of Appeal from Single Judge in First Appeal - Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, Clause 10; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 100 and 101 - The question was whether a Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal from a single Judge's decision in a first appeal was restricted to questions of law under Section 100 CPC. The Supreme Court held that the limitations under Sections 100 and 101 CPC do not apply because a single Judge of the High Court is not a court subordinate to the High Court; hence the appellate bench may review both questions of fact and law, though generally slow to disturb concurrent findings. The Full Bench majority view following Ramsarup Singh was overruled and the matter remanded. Held that the appeal must succeed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Bench of the High Court hearing a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of a Single Judge in a first appeal can consider all matters which a Single Judge could have decided, or is limited by the restrictions imposed by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court and remanded the matter for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The Court made no order as to costs. The appeal was allowed.
Law Points
- A Letters Patent appeal from a Single Judge in a first appeal is not equivalent to a second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- a Single Judge of the High Court is not a court subordinate to the High Court
- limitations under Sections 100 and 101 CPC do not apply
- appeal lies on both questions of fact and law
- concurrent findings of fact may be reviewed in appropriate cases though generally slow to disturb
Case Details
1974 LawText (SC) (08) 28
Civil Appeal No. 1758 of 1967
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, M. Hameedullah Beg, A. Alagiriswami
1974 AIR 2048, 1975 SCR (1) 611, 1974 SCC (2) 492
S. C. Aggarwala, S.S. Bhatnagar, V. J. Francis, D. Goburdhan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court concerning the scope of a Letters Patent appeal from a Single Judge's decision in a first appeal.
Remedy Sought
The appellant/plaintiff sought to set aside the Full Bench judgment and have the Letters Patent appeal heard on both questions of fact and law, with remand for disposal in accordance with law.
Filing Reason
Conflict of decisions on the scope of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court; the Full Bench majority held that findings of fact by the Single Judge are binding in a Letters Patent appeal, contrary to the consensus of other High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the money suit; Single Judge of the Patna High Court in first appeal reversed the trial court's decree; Full Bench on reference held by majority that findings of fact by the Single Judge are binding and cannot be reviewed in a Letters Patent appeal.
Issues
Whether a Bench of the High Court hearing a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of a Single Judge in a first appeal can consider all matters which a Single Judge could have decided, or is limited by the restrictions imposed by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant contended that a Letters Patent appeal from a Single Judge in a first appeal is not equivalent to a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, and the Letters Patent Bench may review findings of fact.
The Full Bench majority followed Ramsarup Singh and held that findings of fact by the Single Judge are binding and cannot be reopened in a Letters Patent appeal.
The dissenting judge took the view consistent with the consensus of other High Courts and the Supreme Court that the appeal lies on both questions of fact and law.
Ratio Decidendi
A Letters Patent appeal from a Single Judge's decision in a first appeal is not governed by the restrictions of Sections 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because a Single Judge of the High Court is not a court subordinate to the High Court. The appellate bench may review both questions of fact and law, though generally slow to disturb concurrent findings of fact.
Judgment Excerpts
The limitations on the power of the Court imposed by ss.100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be made applicable to an Appellate Court hearing a Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of a Single Judge of that High Court in a first appeal from the judgment and decree of the court subordinate to the High Court, for the simple reason that a Single Judge of the High Court is not a Court subordinate to the High Court.
A Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a first appeal to the High Court is not exactly equivalent to a second appeal under s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore it cannot be held that a Letters Patent appeal of this kind can only lie on a question of law and not otherwise.
In view of this decision and the consistent view held by almost all the High Courts in this country on the question under consideration, this appeal must succeed.
Procedural History
Trial Court decreed the money suit in favour of the plaintiff. In first appeal to the High Court, a Single Judge allowed the appeal and reversed the trial court's decree. The plaintiff preferred a Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court. Due to a conflict of decisions, the question of the scope of Clause 10 was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench majority held that findings of fact by the Single Judge are binding and cannot be reviewed; one judge dissented. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate, which set aside the Full Bench judgment and remanded the matter for hearing in accordance with law.
Acts & Sections
- Letters Patent of the Patna High Court: Clause 10
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 100, 101
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 (Act No. XIV of 1882): Chapter XLII
