The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has overriding authority over Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, thereby barring any further appeal against an order passed by a Single Judge in appellate jurisdiction.

This significant ruling came in the case of Attiqa Bano vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., where a Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed two Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), holding them to be non-maintainable under Section 100-A CPC.

“From the plain reading of Section 100-A, it is evident that the 'notwithstanding' clause gives Section 100-A overriding effect over the Letters Patent. It establishes precedence over Clause 12 to the extent of conflict.” – J&K High Court

Read Also:- Wife's Right to Stay in Matrimonial Home Remains Even After Husband’s Death: Kerala High Court

Case Background

Attiqa Bano, a 38-year-old woman from Kupwara, suffered permanent disability in a road accident. She was awarded ₹5,45,600 with 7.5% annual interest by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). Unsatisfied, she filed an appeal seeking enhanced compensation. Simultaneously, the insurance company also filed an appeal challenging the award.

The Single Judge of the High Court heard both appeals together and reduced the compensation to ₹2,33,200, maintaining the same interest rate. Aggrieved by the reduced compensation, the appellant approached the Division Bench by filing LPAs under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

However, the maintainability of the LPAs was questioned, citing Section 100-A CPC, which bars any further appeal once a Single Judge has decided the case in appellate jurisdiction.

Read Also:- Kerala High Court Allows Juveniles in Shahabas Murder Case to Take School Admission from Observation Home

Court’s Analysis

The Bench considered whether an intra-court appeal under Clause 12 is maintainable when the original order is passed by a Single Judge in appellate jurisdiction. The Court firmly held that no further appeal lies in such cases, as Section 100-A clearly prohibits it, even if the order arises from a special legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989.

“This is so even where LPA is preferred against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of special enactment like the Motor Vehicles Act.” – J&K High Court

Read Also:- Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Incineration of Bhopal Gas Tragedy Waste at Pithampur Facility

The court explained that the award given by the MACT is considered a “decree” under Section 169(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the Single Judge’s judgment was an appellate decree, which squarely attracts the bar imposed by Section 100-A.

“The impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge against an original decree by the Tribunal. Hence, further appeal is not maintainable.” – J&K High Court

Judgment Date: 30 May 2025

Coram: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar

Appellant’s Advocate: Mr. A. A. Wani

Respondent’s Advocates: Ms. Anisa (vice Mr. N. A. Dendru), Mr. Aatir Javid Kawoosa