*1* kps I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.148/2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5261/2008 Rajesh Shantaram Vichare. ..Appellant -Versus- Sau.Tulsabai Mahadev Patil and another. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Sagar Joshi for the Appellant. Mr.S.M.Dange for the Respondent No.2. .... CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 02nd July, 2010. P.C. 1 This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 11th July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 166 days in filing the First Appeal. The First Appeal was directed against the judgment dated 16th June, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigad awarding the compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the Respondent No.1/Claimant. This claim petition was filed by the Respondent No.1/Claimant in the year 1997 claiming compensation of Rs.1 Lacs on account of grievous injuries which the Claimant sustained in the motor vehicle accident which took place on 14th May, 1996. 2 The learned Single Judge has held that no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay. *2* 3 In our opinion, this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable because the learned Single Judge was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and in the course of exercising the said jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge has passed impugned order. In view of the provisions of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01st July, 2002, notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by the learned Single Judge, no further appeal shall lie from the said judgment of the learned Single Judge. 4 The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application for condonation of delay, therefore, it cannot be said to be an appeal against the decree. 5 Whether the judgment under challenge is by way of the judgment on merits against the decree or termination of the proceedings by not condoning the delay, it still remains the judgment in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we are not persuaded to accept the contention that the appeal is maintainable. 6 The appeal is, thus, summarily dismissed on the ground of its non-maintainability. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.