1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Letters Patent Appeal No.318 of 2002 In First Appeal No.950 of 1999 Khatijabai w/o. Babu Tambe & ors. Appellants Vs. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd. & anr. Respondents Mr.M.V.Holamagi for appellants. Mr.Madhusudan Gawde for resp.no.1. Mr.A.J.Bhor i/b. M/s.S.J.Billimoria for resp.no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. July 23, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Holamagi, the learned counsel for the appellants. This LPA has been waiting for admission for the last about six years for some or the other reasons. 2. The appellant had filed LC Suit No.3041 of 1993 for declaration of her title in respect of the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and from claiming the amounts from the occupants of the property. The said Suit came to be dismissed by the City Civil Court 2 on 1/10/1999 by the following order: "No witness summons served on the defendants inspite of caution given on 10/9/99, hence the order: Suit stands dismissed for want of service under Rule 55 of the City Civil Court Rules. No order as to costs. R & P send back to department." 3. Instead of filing an application for restoration of the Suit so dismissed, the appellant preferred to challenge that order dated 1/10/1999 in First Appeal No.950 of 1999. On 28/8/2002 i.e. almost after three years the appeal came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of the following order: "Inspite of order of this Court dated 7th August, 2002, the Appellant has not paid Bhatta charges and has not taken steps to get the records and proceedings from the Trial Court. Appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of Order dated 7th August, 2002. Request for further 3 time so also for stay of the operation of this Order is rejected." 4. Even against this order dated 28/8/2002 there was a remedy for the appellants to file an application for restoration of First Appeal No.950 of 1999 but they chose to file this Letters Patent Appeal. We have heard Mr.Holamagi on the maintainability of this appeal. Section 100-A incorporated by the 1976 Amendment in the Civil Procedure Code reads as under: "100-A. 100-A. 100-A. No further appeal in certain cases. - No further appeal in certain cases. - No further appeal in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, decision or order of such Single Judge in such appeal or from any decree passed in such appeal." It is clear from the language of Section 100-A that no further appeal is maintainable from an appellate 4 decree passed by the Single Bench of this Court notwithstanding the Letters Patent of this Court, so long as the First Appeal was filed under Section 96 of CPC. . We have also noted that the instant LPA has been filed after 1/7/2002 and the amended Section 100-A as incorporated by the 2002 Amendment which has come into effect from 1/7/2002 reads as under: "100-A. 100-A. 100-A. No further appeal in certain cases. - No further appeal in certain cases. - No further appeal in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge." 5. Having regards to the earlier scheme of Section 100-A as well as the amended Section 100-A of CPC, this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable and our view is supported from the judgment of the Supreme 5 Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India [JT 2002 (9) SC 175] [JT 2002 (9) SC 175] [JT 2002 (9) SC 175]. Hence the appeal is dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)