K.S. Lodha, J.@mdashSince these two applications arise out the same judgment, they are being disposed of by a common order. These are two
applications under Articles 133 and 134A of the Constitution praying for a certificate that the case involves a substantial question of law of general
importance and requires decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court arising out of the decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 20/75.
2. We have Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. M.M. Vyas appearing for Jankidas Mohanlal, the non-petitioners in both these cases. It has
been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Article 134A a certificate can be issued by this Court as envisaged in Article
132(1) or 133(1) or 134(1) either of this Court deems it fit on its own motion or if an oral application is made by or on behalf of the party
aggrieved immediately after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence as referred to in the opening part of Article
134A. This Court has not at its own motion deemed it necessary to determine the question whether a certificate of the nature referred to in Clause
(1) or Article 132 or Clause (1) of Article 133 or as the case may be Sub-clause (c) of Clause (i) of Article 134 should be granted or not and,
therefore, the only course for the petitioner to get such a certificate was to make an oral application immediately after the passing of the judgment in
the said special appeal. Since that has not been done, now the petitioners cannot ask for a certificate on the basis of written application filed after
more than one month.
4. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the cases that although an oral prayer could have been made for grant of the certificate
immediately after the passing of the judgment, he cannot be precluded from asking for such a certificate even later on by making a written
application for grant of such a certificate and such an application lies under Order 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also urged that Article
134 of the Limitation Act also envisages a written application, if the only course for asking for such a certificate by a party was to make an oral
application immediately after the delivery of the judgment the provision for limitation for making an application would have been meaningless and
respondent.
5. We have given our consideration to these contentions and in our opinion, the preliminary objection must prevail. It is clear that this Court did not
deem it necessary to determine the question whether a certificate of the nature referred to in the Articles already mentioned above should or should
not be granted and now the certificate is being prayed for by making written application after more than a month of the passing of the judgment and
it is only on that basis that the certificate is prayed for Article 134A has been introduced by the amendment No. 44 of 197S in the Constitution and
this amendment appears to have been brought in because earlier these were no clear rules when an application for grant of certificate referred to in
Articles 132, 133 and 134 was to be made and different High Courts took different views and made different rules. Therefore, in order to remove
the anomaly. Article 134A had to be introduced by the 44th amendment and now the procedure and the question of limitation has been determined
by providing that an oral application has to be made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved immediately after the passing or making of the
judgment, decree, final order or sentence. No other made by a later application be the parties is provided for. Of course, the court has been given
a discretion to consider this question is it deems necessary suo moto but if the court does not take any step in this respect suo moto, then the only
course open to the parties for making such an application is way of making an oral application immediately after the passing of making of the
judgment, decree, final order or sentence and no written application is either envisaged or entertainable. The provisions of Order 45, CPC or
Article 134 of the Limitation Act would not be of any avail to the petitioner in as much as when a constitutional provision is in conflict with any
other provision of law, the constitutional provision would always prevail. Here when Article 134A has been introduced by the 44th Amendment,
the earlier provisions of Order 45, CPC or Article 134 Limitation Act would not came to the aid of the petitioner. A similar view has been taken
by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Ramachandra Sambhaji Kandekar and Others, . Calcutta
High Court also appears to have taken the same view as has been digested in the AIR Manual on Article 134A at page 436, 4th Edition, VIII
Volume in the case reported in (1980) 1 Cal. HEN 235.
6. In this view of the matter, these written applications for grant of the certificates for leave to appeal to the Hon''ble Supreme Court cannot be
entertained and are here by rejected.