1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR 1. Civil Application (Z) No.517/2009 in CA No./-------/2009 in LPA No.11/2002 in F.A. No. 12/89. (Smt. Rafatunnisa w/o Khwaja Mazharullah Khan vs. Syed Sayeed s/o Syed Masood and others.) 2. Civil Application (Z) No. 515/2009 in LPA No.11/2002 in FA No.12/89. (Smt. Rafatunnisa w/o: Khwaja Mazharullah Khan vs. Syed Sayeed s/o Syed Masood and others. 3. Civil Application (Z) No. 516/2009 in LPA No.11/2002 in FA No.12/89 (Smt. Rafatunnisa w/o Khwaja Mazharullah Khan vs. Syed Sayeed s/o Syed Masood and others.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. N.S.Warulkar, Adv. Holding for Mr. S.P.Palshikar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Sundaram, Adv. For respondent no.2. Mr. M.K.Kulkarni, Adv. For L.Rs. Of respondent no.4. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 2.9.2010 These applications are for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and bringing legal representatives of respondent no.4 in the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The delay for which condonation is sought for 2` is for a period of 2350 days for the reasons stated in the application. Mr. Sundaram, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposes the application for condonation of delay but mainly objects to the present application on the ground that the application made for condonation of delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal be rejected since the appeal is itself not maintainable. Mr. Sundaram submits that the present letters patent appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in First Appeal and the First Appeal was carried to the learned Single Judge against a Judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation. Section 100- A of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “100-A: 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.” 3. We would have thought that the present letters patent appeal filed against an interim order passed by 3` the learned Single Judge in First Appeal would be clearly untenable. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant submitted that though the letters patent appeal does not lie against the order of Single Judge passed in First Appeal by the reason of Section 100- A of CPC, the letters patent appeal is tenable since the order which is questioned in this letters patent appeal is an interim order and not the final order. This argument requires to be mainly stated to be rejected. We see no merit in this contention. Hence, the applications are rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle