Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Prabha Aggarwal & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 19512 of 1998)
Petitioner: Bihar State Electricity Board
Respondent: Prabha Aggarwal & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 19512 of 1998)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 10, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE LAW
High Court – Letters Patent Appeal – Dismissal on the ground that leave to appeal has not been sought by appellant – Whether justi-fied. Held as the review petition of the appellant was dismissed by the Single Judge it had a right to directly file LP Appeal against that judgment. Division Bench, therefore, erred in dis-posing of the appeal as not maintainable. Matter ordered to be restored for hearing and decision on merits.
High Court – Letters Patent Appeal – Dismissal on the ground that leave to appeal has not been sought by appellant – Whether justi-fied. Held as the review petition of the appellant was dismissed by the Single Judge it had a right to directly file LP Appeal against that judgment. Division Bench, therefore, erred in dis-posing of the appeal as not maintainable. Matter ordered to be restored for hearing and decision on merits.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the acquiring body as well as the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 who are the real contesting respondents. State of Bihar which is respondent no.3 is deemed to have been served as 30 days from the date of issuance of notice to it are over. Respondent no.4 is a formal party and is served.
3. The short question is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appell-ant-Board being L.P.A. No. 904 of 1996 on the ground that appli-cation for leave to appeal was not filed. It is difficult to appreciate this line of reasoning. The appellant, which is the acquiring body, had moved the learned Single Judge in review proceedings being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge enhancing the compensation without hearing the appellant which was not joined as a party to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. When the review petition was dismissed the appellant had a right to directly file a Letters Patent Appeal against that very judgment as it was a party to the review pro-ceedings.
4. Only on this short ground, therefore, it must be held that the Division Bench of the High Court wrongly disposed of the appeal as not maintainable because the appellant had not sought any leave to appeal. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 13th May 1998 is set aside. Letters Patent Appeal No. 904 of 1996 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to the appropriate Division Bench to which the appeal will be assigned for hearing, to decide the same on merits after hearing the parties concerned.
5. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the controversy between the parties, including the question of maintainability of the
appeal on any other legally permissible ground.
6. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the acquiring body as well as the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 who are the real contesting respondents. State of Bihar which is respondent no.3 is deemed to have been served as 30 days from the date of issuance of notice to it are over. Respondent no.4 is a formal party and is served.
3. The short question is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appell-ant-Board being L.P.A. No. 904 of 1996 on the ground that appli-cation for leave to appeal was not filed. It is difficult to appreciate this line of reasoning. The appellant, which is the acquiring body, had moved the learned Single Judge in review proceedings being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge enhancing the compensation without hearing the appellant which was not joined as a party to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. When the review petition was dismissed the appellant had a right to directly file a Letters Patent Appeal against that very judgment as it was a party to the review pro-ceedings.
4. Only on this short ground, therefore, it must be held that the Division Bench of the High Court wrongly disposed of the appeal as not maintainable because the appellant had not sought any leave to appeal. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 13th May 1998 is set aside. Letters Patent Appeal No. 904 of 1996 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to the appropriate Division Bench to which the appeal will be assigned for hearing, to decide the same on merits after hearing the parties concerned.
5. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the controversy between the parties, including the question of maintainability of the
appeal on any other legally permissible ground.
6. No costs.
