Order
1. In the judgment and order impugned before us, the Division Bench has taken the view that Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure introduced w.e.f 1-7-2002 is retrospective in effect and would be applicable to the appeals filed before 1-7-2002 as well. Counsel for the parties have brought to our notice that later a Full Bench of the same Court in Rahul Sharad Awasthi v. Ratnakar Trimbak Pandit (2004) 3 Mah LJ 706 (FB) has overruled the judgments and orders impugned before us by observing thus: (Mah LJ p. 723, para 38)
“38. The view of the Division Bench in Chandreshwar Bhuthanath (2003) 2 Bom LR 915 (DB) that new Section 100-A of the Code brought into force on 1-7-2002 is retrospective completely and shall apply to letters patent appeals which have been filed, admitted and pending is not the correct view and that judgment does not lay down the law correctly.”
2. In this view of the matter, the judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. In case any stay was operative during the pendency of the letters patent appeal, then the same shall continue to operate till the disposal of the appeal unless varied by the Bench on an application filed by either of the parties.
3. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.