IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 12 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 28, 2009 Gulzar Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 12 and 13 of 2009, which have been directed against the order dated 24.12.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in R.F.A. Nos. 788 and 785 of 1995. Learned Single Judge has decided the aforementioned Regular First Appeals in terms of the detailed reasons given in the order of even date passed in R.F.A. No. 716 of 1995, enhancing the compensation which was awarded by the Reference Court. Alongwith the appeals, the appellants have also filed L.P.A. No. 12 of 2009 applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of 3456 days delay in filing the appeals as well as applications under Section 151 CPC for condonation of 60 days delay in re-filing the same. According to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Parshotam Dass v. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) PLR 816, Letters Patent Appeals filed before 1.7.2002 could only be entertained as per the amendment made in Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Code’). Therefore, these appeals could not be maintainable as intra-Court appeals have been abolished by Section 100A of the Code. Accordingly, the instant appeals fail and the same are dismissed being not maintainable. No orders are required to be passed on the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) April 28, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2