IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 324 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 15, 2009 Sunil Kumar and others …Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ramesh Bansal, Advocate, for Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges order dated 6.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in RFA Nos. 1683 of 1995 [main judgment passed in RFA No. 1645 of 1995 (Ram Narain v. State of Haryana and another) decided on 6.7.2000]. In view of amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by way of incorporation of Section 100A, no intra-court appeal from the date of said amendment, would be maintainable. The provision of Section 100A CPC has been interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Parshotam Dass v. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) PLR 816 (F.B.). Even otherwise, there is huge delay of 3180 days in filing the instant appeal. The appeal is not maintainable. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) October 15, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor