Case: Muniyamma and Ors Vs. Anitha Vaz

1. Nobody appears for the Appellants when the case was taken. However, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent stated that the sale deed has been executed and registered before the Trial Court pursuant to impugned judgment in Respondents favour in relation to suit property and, therefore, the appeal has been rendered as infructuous.2. Even otherwise, we find that this Court, vide order dated 21.08.2008 had issued Show Cause Notice to the Respondent confining it to examine the question as to why the order granting leave by the High Court be not revoked.3. We find that the learned Single Judge, in the present case, had granted certificate of leave Under Articles 133 read with Article 134-A of the Constitution of India to the Appellant to file this appeal. The said article, in our view, specifically prohibits learned Single Judge of the High Court to grant leave as has been held by this Court in State Bank of India and Anr. v. S.B.I. Employees Union and Anr. 1987 (4) SCC 370 and followed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5817 of 2012 entitled Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao v. Indukuru Ramchandra Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. (dated 13.04.2017).

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. We find that the learned Single Judge, in the present case, had granted certificate of leave Under Articles 133 read with Article 134-A of the Constitution of India to the Appellant to file this appeal. The said article, in our view, specifically prohibits learned Single Judge of the High Court to grant leave as has been held by this Court in State Bank of India and Anr. v. S.B.I. Employees Union and Anr. 1987 (4) SCC 370   and followed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5817 of 2012 entitled Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao v. Indukuru Ramchandra Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. (dated 13.04.2017).