The following resume of the facts will be helpful in appreciating the question.
On October 15, 1996, the learned Trial Judge, Madhubani, Bihar ordered that interim companypensation of Rs.50,000/ be paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company within one month.
It was from that order that the Letters Patent Appeal arose, which was held to be number maintainable by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Against that order, M.A.No.494 of 1996 was filed by the Insurance Company, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on April 13, 1998.
The short question that arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether the Letters Patent Appeal No.599 of 1998 filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court passed in M.A.No.494 of 1996 dated April 13, 1998, is maintainable.
In New Kenilworth Hotel P Ltd. case supra , aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 , an appeal under Section 104 1 CPC read with Order 43, Rule 1 r was filed before the High Court which was disposed of by one Judge of the High Court.
The parents of the victim filed a Claim Case No.31 of 1996 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. Leave is granted.
The appellant is the owner of a truck which met with an accident, on February 1, 1996, resulting in the death of one Pradeep Kumar.
LITTTTTTTJ This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A.No.599 of 1998 dated July 2, 1998 holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was number maintainable.
From the order judgment of one Judge, a letters patent appeal second appeal was filed before the Division Bench under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Orissa High Court.
