- (1.) THESE eight Letters Patent Appeals (13 (P)/51, 9 (P)/54, 40 (P)/54, 9 (P)/55, 27 (P)/55, 57 (P)/55, 58 (P)/55 and 61 (P)/56)were filed in the erstwhile High Court of pepsu against orders passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of the powers of civil revisional jurisdiction of that Court. An identical preliminary objection raised in these appeals is regarding their competency.
(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the matter in question is to be decided according to the law which, before its merger into the State of Punjab, obtained in Pepsu at the time the appeals were filed. Section 52 of the Pepsu 05), which admittedly applies, reads- "subject to any other provision of law, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from a judgment, decree or order of one judge of the High Court and shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two judges of the High court: provided that no such appeal shall lie to the High Court unless the Judge who decides the case or in his absence the Chief Justice certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal. Provided further that no such appeal shall lie in respect of a judgment, decree or order made in the exercise of criminal appellate jurisdiction of the High Court or against a sentence or order passed Or made in the exercise of the powers of superintendence over the subordinate judiciary and ministerial officers vested in the High Court. " The section, as it was printed and published in the Official Gazette, dated 10th katik, 2005 Bk. (October 25, 1948), provides for an appeal to a Division Bench against a judgment, decree or order of one Judge of the High Court, on a certificate granted by the Judge or in his absence by the Chief Justice, except where the judgment, decree or order is made in exercise of criminal appellate jurisdiction or in exercise of the powers of superintendence vested in the High court. The section, as it stands, does not make any exception in case of judgment, decree or order made in exercise of the civil or criminal revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Prima facie, therefore, an appeal under this section would lie against the judgment, decree or order made by one Judge of the said High Court in the exercise of civil or criminal revisional jurisdiction of the Court.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, it is contended that there must have been some mistake somewhere in the drafting or printing of the second proviso to the section, otherwise it would never have been the intention of the Legislature to provide for an appeal against an order made by a Single Judge in exercise of the criminal or civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. That would mean a departure from the powers under the Letters Patent of all other High Courts in India, for which there was no possible reason. In my view, the contention is not without force and it has to be accepted. A simple reading of the second proviso to Section 52 gives the impression, of there being something missing without the insertion of which the proviso fails to convey the complete sense. No decree can ever be passed in the exercise of the criminal appellate jurisdiction of the High Court; use of the term 'decree' in conjunction with 'judgment' or 'order' is un-understandable. It does not stand to reason that while excluding the right of appeal against a criminal appellate order, the section would provide for an appeal against an order passed by the Single Judge on a criminal revision. Again, a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the powers of superintendence would not be open to appeal, but an order made in a petition for revision would be appellable. A brief history of the legislation will make it abundantly clear that this manifest contradiction or any departure from the powers under the Letters Patent of other high Courts in India was never intended, and that it is a case of an inadvertent error of the draftsman or the printer.;