http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: VINITA M. KHANOLKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRAGNA M. PAI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/11/1997

BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:              Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar              Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami G.B.Sathe, D.N. Hungod, Advs. for the appellant D.N. Mishra,  Adv. for  M/s. J.B.D.  & Co.,  Advs.  for  the Respondents.                          O R D E R      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:      Leave granted.   We  have heard learned counsel for the parties.      The short  question is  whether  an  appeal  would  lie before a  Division bench  of the High Court against an order of the  learned Single  Judge rendered by him in proceedings under sec.  6 of  the Specific Relief Act, 1960 (hereinafter refer to  as ’the  act’).   Learned Single  Judge passed  an order dated 15.11.1994 in Suit No. 411/93 decreeing the suit in terms  thereof.   When  an  appeal  was  carried  to  the Division Bench  of the High Court against the said order, it was contended  on behalf  of the respondents that the appeal was not  maintainable in  view of  sub-sec. (3) of sec. 6 of the Act.     The said provision certainly bars any appeal or revision against  any order passed by the court under sec. 6 of the  Act.   To that  extent the  decision of the Division Bench cannot  be found  fault with.  However, one contention canvassed by  learned counsel  for  the  appellant  requires closer scrutiny.   he submitted that even if an appeal would not lie  under sub-sec.  (3) of  sec. 6 of the act by itself against any  order passed  by the  court under sec. 6 of the Act, this was an order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court  exercising original  jurisdiction.    Therefore, under clause  15 of  the Letters  Patent which  is a charter under which  the High  Court of  Bombay functioned, the said provision for  appeal would  not have  been whittled down by the statutory provisions of sec. 6(3) of the Act.  Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is extracted hereunder:-      "15,  Appeal  from  the  Courts  of      original jurisdiction  to the  High      Court     in      its     appellate      jurisdiction,  ...And we do further

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    ordain that  an appeal shall lie to      the said  High Court  of Judicature      at Madras,  Bombay, Fort William in      Bengal from the judgment (not being      a judgment  passed in  the exercise      of   appellate    jurisdiction   in      respect of  a decree  or order made      in  the   exercise   of   appellate      jurisdiction by  a Court subject to      the  superintendence  of  the  said      High Court  and not  being an order      made   in   the   exercise   of   a      revisional  jurisdiction,  and  not      being a sentence or order passed or      made in  exercise of  the power  of      superintendence      under      the      provisions of  section 107  of  the      Government of  India Act, or in the      exercise of  criminal jurisdiction)      of one Judge of the said High Court      or one Judge of any Division Court,      pursuant  to  section  106  of  the      Government of  India Act,  and that      notwithstanding            anything      hereinbefore  provided,  an  appeal      shall lie  to the  said High  Court      from a Judgment of one Judge of the      said High Court or one Judge of any      division Court, pursuant to section      108 of the government of India Act,      on  or   after  the  first  day  of      February 1929  in the  exercise  of      appellate jurisdiction  in  respect      of a  decree or  order made  in the      exercise of  appellate jurisdiction      by   a   Court   subject   to   the      superintendence of  the  said  High      Court where  the Judge  who  passed      the judgment declares that the case      is a  fit one  for appeal; but that      the  right  of  appeal  from  other      judgments of  Judges  of  the  said      High  Court  or  of  such  Division      Court shall be to Us.  Our heirs or      successors in  Our or  Their  Privy      Council, as hereinafter provided."      Now it  is well  settled that  any statutory  provision barring  an   appeal  or  revision  cannot  cut  across  the constitutional power  of a  High  Court.    Even  the  power flowing from  the paramount  charter under  which  the  High Court functions  would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent.   No such  bar is  discernible from sec. 6(3) of the act.  it could not be seriously contended by learned counsel for the  respondents that if clause 15 of the Letters Patent is   invoked   then   the   order   would   be   appealable. Consequently, in  our view,  on the clear language of clause 15 of  the Letters Patent which is applicable to Bombay High Court, the  said appeal  was maintainable as the order under appeal was  passed by learned Single Judge of the High court exercising original jurisdiction of the court.  Only on that short ground the appeal is required to be allowed.      The judgment  and order of the High Court in appeal No. 960/94 are  set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the  High Court for being proceeded further in accordance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

with law.   As  the appeal  of 1994 is being restored to the file of  the High  Court, the  High Court  is  requested  to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed.  No costs.  We make it clear  that we  express no  opinion on  the merits of the controversy between the parties.