LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
(2.) IN the suit for specific performance of the contract filed by the present respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondents No. 2 to 5, initially an application for rejection of plaint was filed by the present appellant. The said application came to be rejected on August 11, 2006. A day earlier i. e. on August 10, 2006 the present respondent No. 6 was impleaded as party-defendant. He then made an application for rejection of plaint. The said application was granted by the trial court on March 1, 2007 and, thus, plaint came to be rejected. The present respondent No. 1 original plaintiff preferred first appeal (the order of rejection of plaint being deemed decree) before this Court which was registered as SB Civil First Appeal No. 181/2007. On April 2, 2007, the Single Judge allowed the first appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court dated March 1, 2007 and restored the civil suit to the trial Court. The present appellant made an application for recalling the order dated April 2, 2007. The said application has been rejected by the Single Judge on May 15, 2007. The present special appeal is from the said order. Section 100a substituted by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 effective from July 1, 2002 reads thus: " No further appeal in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any 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. " Mr. Paras Kuhad, the counsel for the appellant submits that Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is not an impediment for maintaining this special appeal. Firstly, because the present appeal is not from the judgment and decree of the Single Judge; it is from the order refusing to recall the order whereby the Single Judge restored the suit to the trial Court. Secondly, because in a matter like this where the litigant has not been heard by the Single Judge, the legislature never intended to fore-close the right of intra court appeal. The counsel relies upon the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ganesh Singh and another vs. Bishram Singh and others (2003 (3) JCR 527 (Jharkhand ).
(3.) THE real question before us is whether Section 100-A of the Code as substituted by the Amendment Act, 2002 affects and restricts further appeal from the judgment of the Single Judge exercising the first appellate jurisdiction arising out of the suit filed prior to 1st July, 2002. It is true that the Jharkhand High Court has taken the view that Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not affect the right of appeal under the Letters Patent in respect of suits filed prior to 1. 7. 2002. However, we find it difficult to concur with the view of Jharkhand High Court; with respect we differ in view of the earlier decision of our own High Court and the Full Bench decisions of some other High Courts. ;