- (1.)HEARD . This appeal under Clause X of the Letters patent has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 25.2.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in his Misc. Appeal No. 692/01. This appeal was filed on 24.6.2002. The office has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of this appeal.
(2.)HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record and the amendment incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure with effect from 1.7.2002, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal under Clause -X of the Letters Patent would not be maintainable. Section 100A of the CPC as has been inserted by the Amending Act of 2002, reads as under :
"100A. No further appeal in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything conained 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."

S. 16 of the Amending Act, 2002, deals with repeal and savings. Reading of this section makes it clear that only those appeals have been saved, which stood admitted prior to 1.7.2002. No. doubt it is true that this appeal had been filed before 1.7.2002, but the same had not been admitted for hearing. Since it was not admitted for hearing, the appeal is not saved and would not be maintainable.

(3.)PRECISELY , this is the opinion which has been expressed by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2002 (2) JLJ 327 = (2003) 1 MPLJ P. 10 Laxmi Narayan v. Shivlal Gujar and Ors.