Against the judgment of this learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2008 the LPA was filed.
It may be mentioned that the proceedings arose out of an interim order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgments of the Orissa High Court dated 24.9.2008 in LPA No.7 of 2008 and dated 25.10.2008 in LPA No.8 of 2008.
III, Bhubaneswar in Civil Suit No.498 of 2004.
Dated 6.8.2008.
The Civil Suit is still pending, but against the aforesaid interim order dated 9.9.2005 a first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 being FAO No.386 of 2007 was filed before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who decided it on 6.8.2008.
Since there was companyflict of opinion between different Division Benches of the High Court on the point whether the LPA was maintainable in view of the amendment of Section 100A CPC the Full Bench was companystituted, and by the impugned judgment it was held that the LPA was number maintainable in view of Section 100 A CPC.
The facts have been mentioned in the impugned judgment of the High Court and hence we are number repeating the same here.
The short question in the case is whether a Letters Patent Appeal for short LPA is maintainable before the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Markandey Katju, J. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
9321 9322 OF 2010 arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.2515 2516 of 2009 Leave granted.
