Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from Special Civil Suit No.44 of 2003 filed by the appellant, an educational institute, against the respondents. The respondents had applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint. The trial court rejected that application on 7 August 2004, prompting the respondents to file a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision on 21 September 2010, setting aside the trial court order. Subsequently, on 20 November 2012, the Single Judge passed a clarifying order that the application under Order VII Rule 11 was allowed and the plaint stood rejected. The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal against that order. The core question was whether the appeal was maintainable given that Clause 15 of the Letters Patent expressly bars appeals against 'an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction'. The appellant argued that the Single Judge's order effectively passed a decree, and since Clause 15 only bars appeals against orders, a decree is appealable. The appellant also pointed out that Section 115 does not explicitly bar further appeals unlike Sections 104(2) and 100A. The respondent contended that the legislative intent was to bar all intra-court appeals from revisional decisions irrespective of nomenclature. The Court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that the right of appeal is statutory. It reasoned that the phrase 'make such order in the case as it thinks fit' in Section 115 includes the power to pass a decree, and thus the word 'order' in Clause 15 must be interpreted to include 'decree'. The Court observed that revisional jurisdiction is fundamentally appellate in nature, as held in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1. It also surveyed the legislative scheme of the Code, noting that Sections 100A, 104(2), and Clause 15 all bar further intra-court appeals from Single Judge decisions. The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal as not maintainable, holding that no appeal lies against a decision of a Single Judge rendered in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, whether described as an order or a decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Interpretation of 'Order' in Clause 15 - Letters Patent Clause 15, Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Court held that in the context of Clause 15, the word 'order' includes a decree, as the revisional power under Section 115 allows the High Court to make any order in the case as it thinks fit, including passing a decree which finally disposes of the suit. Therefore, an appeal to a Division Bench against a decree passed in revisional jurisdiction is barred under Clause 15. (Paras 10-11) B) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Nature and Scope - Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Revisional jurisdiction is part of the High Court's general appellate jurisdiction, and the proviso to Section 115(1) contemplates that a revision may result in an order that finally disposes of the suit. Consequently, the bar on intra-court appeals from revisional orders extends to decrees as well. Held that the bar applies uniformly regardless of the nomenclature used for the decision. (Paras 15-16) C) Civil Procedure - Appeals - Right to Appeal Is Statutory - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The right of appeal is not inherent but a creature of statute; if a statute does not provide an appeal against a certain decision, a party may still seek judicial review under constitutional provisions. The Court relied on Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 591. (Para 9) D) Civil Procedure - Intra-Court Appeals - Legislative Scheme Barring Further Appeals - Sections 100A, 104(2), 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Clause 15, Letters Patent - The legislative intent is to prevent multiple tiers of intra-court appeals; the Court charted that further appeals to a Division Bench are barred in cases of second appeals (Section 100A), first appeals (Section 100A), appeals from orders (Section 104(2)), and revisions (Clause 15). Accepting the appellant's argument that a decree in revision is appealable would defeat this legislative scheme. Held that the appeal was not maintainable. (Paras 14, 16-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 lies against a decree passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, given the bar in Clause 15 against appeals from 'an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction'.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, upholding the preliminary objection. The bar under Clause 15 applies equally to decrees passed in revisional jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Appeal is a statutory right
- The word 'order' in Clause 15 of Letters Patent includes decree
- Revision jurisdiction is part of appellate jurisdiction
- Intra-court appeals barred by statutory scheme
