The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005

(HC)387
HIGH
COURT(APPEAL
TO
DB.)AD/llNIYAM.
2005
THE
MADHYA
PRADESH
UCHCHA
NYAYALAYA
(KHAND
NYAYPEETH
KO
APPEAL)
ADHINIYAM,2005
(Acto.
14
of
2006)
!Published.
in.
Madhya
Pradesh
RqJpatra
(Asadltaran),
dated
5·4·
,06,
p.
406(1).J
CONTENT
I.
Short
Utle
and
commencement,
2.
Appeal
to
U1e
Division
Bench
ofthe
High
Court
from
a
Judgment
or
order
of
one
Judge
of
the
High
Court
made
ln
exercise
of
originaljurtsdtctron.
3.
Power
Lo
make
rules.
4
Repeal.
TBE
MADHYA
PRADESH
UCHCHANYAYALAYA
(KHANO
NYAYPEETB
KQ
APPEAL)
ADHINIYAM,
2005
(Act
No.
14
of
2006}
(Received
the
assent
of
thePrest.denton
the
28th
March.2006;
,sent
firstpublished
en
the
?Madhya
PradeshGazette
(Exaa...c,rdt·
uyf.
dated
the5th
Aprtl.
2006.J
AnActto
pl,'ovide
for
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
Ol'
oniel"
1Hed
by
one
Jud&e
of
the
High
Court
lnexerciseofthe
original
uisdlction,
to
a
Division
Bench.of
the
same
lllgh
Court.
Be
It
enacted
by
the
Madhya
Pradesh
Legislature
In
the
Ftfty-
sixth
ear
ofthe
Republtc
of
lndla
as
foUows:-
1.
Shorttitle
and
commencement.-(I)
Tots
Act
may
be
called
the
adhya
Pradesh
Uchcha
Nyayalaya
(Khand
Nyaypeeth
Ko
Appeal)
dhmiyarn,
2005.
(2)
It
shallbe
deemd
to
have
come
Into
force
on
the
lsl
day
of
Jly.
1981.
2.
Appeal
to
the
Division
Benchofthe
High
Court
&om
a
ad&ment
or
order
of
one
Judge
of
the
Hlgb
Court
made
ln
exercise
r
or:lglnal
Jurladlctlon.-(1)
An
appeal
shall
lie
from
a
Judgment
or
rder
passedby
one
Judge
of
lhe
High
Courtin
exercise
of
original
irtsdtctton
under
Article
226
of
theConstitution
of
India,
to
a
Dlvi
ton
ench
Comprising
of
two
Judges
of
the
same
High
Court:
Providedthat
no
such
appeal
shall
Ue
against
an
Interlocutory
rder
or
again
tan
order
passed
Inexercise
of
supervisory
jurtsdicl)f>n
nder
Article
227of
theConstltutlonof
India.
?
,")
I
12)
An
appeal
under
sub-secuon
(
1)
shallbe
filed
within
45
days
'Om
thedateof
order
passed
by
a
single
Judge:

CHC)388
assume
immense
significance.
It
wou.J.?
not
be
an
overemphasis
to
?tate
that
an
order
jn
a
writ.
petition
can
fit
into
the subtle
contour of
Articles
226
and
227 of
the Constitution
in
a
composite
manner
and
they can
coincide,
co-exit,
overlap
or
imbricate.
In
this
context
it is
apt
to
note
Lhat
there
may
be
cases
where the
learned
Single
Judge
may
feel
disposed
or
inclined
to
issue
a
writ
to
do full
and
complete
justice
because
it is
to
be
borne
in mind that
Article
226 of
the
Constitution
is
fundamentally a
reposilory
and
reservoir of
justice
based
on
equity
end
good
conscience.
It
will
depend
upon
factual
matrix of
each
case.
In view
of
the aforesaid
premised
reasons,
we
are
oft.he
humble
view
that
dismissal
of
an
appeal
from
Romo:
and Co.
u.
State
of M.P.,
2007(3)
.MPLJ
154 =
2007(3)
MPHT
325 ""
2007(II)
MPJR 229
(DB),
is
not
a
binding
precedent
as
there
are
earlier
judgments
in
the
field
?nd
the
?gh ?ourt
bound
to
follow
the
earlier decisions
as
per
the
law
laid down
m
Union
of
India
u.
Raghubir
Siflgh
(dead)
by
L.Rs.
etc.,
AIR
1989
SC
1933,
Indian
Oil
Corporation
Ltd.
u.
Municipal
Corporation,
AIR
1995
SC
1480,
N.S.
Gin
v.
Corporation of
City
of
Man.galore,
1999(4)
SCC
697,
Chandra
Prakash
u.
State
of
U.P.,
2002
AIR
SCW
1673,
Jabolpur
Bus
Operators
Association
u.
State
of
M.P.,
2003(1)
MPLJ
513=2003(1)
MPJR
158(FB)
and S.
Brahmanand
u,
KR.
Muthugopal
(dead) and
others,
2005(12)
SCC
764.
Conclusions:
In
view
of
our
afore aid
analysis
we
proceed
to
record
our
conclusions
in
seriatimi-
(i)
A
power
to
issue the
writ is
original
and
the
jurisdiction
exer­
cised is
original
jurisdiction.
(ii)
Proceedings
under
Article
226 oft.he Constitution
are
in
exer­
cise
of
original
jurisdiction
of the
High
Court
whereas t.he
proceedings
initiated
under article
227
of
the Constitution
are
supervisory
in
nature.
.
(iii)
When
a
writ is
issued under
Article
226
of the Constitution it is
issued
in
exercise
of
original jurisdiction
whether
against a
Tribunal
or an
Inferior
Court
or
Administrative
Authorities.
(iv)
The
power
exercised under
Article
226
of the
Co?stitu?on. is_m
exercise
of
original jurisdiction
and
not
supervisory
jurisdic­
tion.
(v)
Exercise
of
supervi
ory
power
and
power
of
s_uper?te_nd?n?e
is
not t.o
be
equated
with
the
original
or
supervisory
Jurisdiction.
(vi)
The order
passed
in
SLP
(Civil)
o.
9186f2007
is
a
d?claration
oflaw under
Article
141
of
the
Constitution
but
the
High
Court
is bound
to
follow
the earlier deci
ions
in
the field
regard being
had
to
the
concept
of
precedents
as
per
law
laid down
by
the
Apex
Court
and
the
five
Judge
Bench
decision
in
Jabclpur
Bus
Operators
Association
<J.
State
of
M.P
.•
2003(1)
MPLJ
513 =
2003(1)
MPJR 158
(FB).
(HC)389
uton
COURT
(APPEAL
TO
DB,)
ADillNIYAM,
2005
HIGH
COURT
(APPEAL
1U
DB.)
ADlllNTYAM,
2005
Provided
that
any
appeal
may
be
admJtted
after
the
prescrtbed
period
of
45
days,
lf
the
petitioner
satisfies
the
Division
Bench
that
he
had
sufficient
eau
e
for
not
preferring
the
appeal wtlhin
such
period.
Exptan.tton.-Toe
fact
that
the
petitioner
was
ml
led
by
any
order.
practice
or
Judgment
of
the
High
Court
1n
ascertaJnJng
or
compuUngthe
prescribed
pertod
ma.y
be
sufficient
cause
within
the
meantng
of
tht
sub-sectton.
(3}
An
appeal
under
sub-
ection
(
1)
shalJ
be
Jlled,
heard
and
decided
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
as
may
be
prescrtbed
by the
HJgh
Court.
COMMENTARY
SYNOPSIS
A.
Sub-section
(1)
of
Section
2:
1.
Writ
appeal
against an
order
•
Maintainability
of
-
Full
Bench
decisions.
2.
Some
writ
appeals
held
maintainable.
3.
Some
writ
appeals
held
not
maintainable.
4.
Availability
of
Intra
Court
appeal
and/or
Right
of
appeal.
6.
Rights
of
Writ
Court.
6.
Jurisdiction,
7.
Third
appeal
barred.
8.
New
ground
not
allowed
in
writ
appeal
argument.
B.
Sub-section
(2)
of
Section
2:
1.
Scope
of
the
explanation
appended
to
sub-section
(2).
2.
Meaning
of
word
"petitioner"
used
in
explanation
attached.
A.
Sub-section
(1)
of
Section
2:
1.
Writ
appeal
against an order-
Maintainability
of-Full Bench
decision
.-
(a)
[per
majority
judgment
by
four
Judges (S.Samvatsar
J.
con­
tra)].-The
maintainability
of
a
writ
appeal
from
an
order of
the
learned
Single
Judge
would
depend
upon
many
an
aspect
and
cannot
be
put
into
a
traitjacket
formula.
It
cannot
be
stated
with
mathematical
exactitude.
It
would
depend
upon
the
pleadings
in
the
writ
petition,
nature
of
the
order
passed
by
the
learned
Single
Judge,
character
and the
contour
of
the
order,
directions
issued,
nomenclature
given
and
t.he
jurisdictional
prospective
in
the
constitutional
context
are
to
be
perceived.
It
cannot
be
said
in
a
hypertechnical
manner
that
an order
passed
in
a
writ
petition,
if
there
is
as
ail
to
the
order
emerging
from
the
Inferior
Tribunal
or
Subordinate
Courts
has
to
be
treated
all
the
time
for
all
purposes
to
be
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution
of
India
It
would
depend
upon
the
real
nature
oft.he
order
passed
by
the
learned
Single
Judge.
To elaborate:
whether
the
learned
Single
Judge
has
exercised
his
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
or
under
Article
227
or
both
would
depend
upon
various
aspects
and
many
a
facet
as
has
been
empha
ized
in
the
aforequoted
deciaicns
of
th
Apex
Court.
The
pleadings,
as
hos
be
n indicated
herei.nabove,
also

(HC)391
HIGH
COURT
(APPEAL
TO
DB.)
ADHINIYAM,
2005
emerging
from
the inferior
tribunal
or
subordinate
courts
has
to
be
treated
all
the
time
for
all
purposes
lo
be
\lllder
Article
227
of
the
Constitution
of
India.
Phraseology
used in
eiercise
of
original
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution
in
S
ction
2
of
the
Act
cannot
be
given
a
restrict?
and
con
trued
meaning
because
an
order
passed
in
a
writ
petition
can
tantamount
to
an
order
under
Articles
226 nnd
227
of the
Constitution
of
India
and
it
would
depend
upon
the
real
nature
of
the
order
passed
by
the
learned
single
Judge.
To
elaborate:
'Whether
the
learned
single
Judge
has
exercised hi
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
or
und
r
Article
227
or
both
would
depend
upon
various
aspects.
AB bas
be
n
hold
in
the
case
of
Surya
Dev
Rai
v.
Ram
Chander
Rai,
AIR
2003
SC
3044
a
writ
of
certiorari
can
be
issued
under
Article
226
of the
Constitution
against
an
order of
a
tribunal
or an
order
passed
by
the
subordinate
Court.
In
quintessentiality,
it
caanot
be
put
in
a
strait­
[ocket
formula
that
any
order of
the
learned
single
Judge
that
deals
with
an
order
arising
from
an
inferior
tribunal
or
the
subordinate
Court
is
an
order
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution
oflndia
and
not
an
order
under
Article
226
of the
Constitution.
It
would
not
be
an
overempha
i
to
state
that
an
order
in
a
writ
petition
can
fit
into the
subtle
contour
of
Articles
226
and
227 of the
Constitution
in
a
composite manner
end
they
can
coinside,
co-exit,
over-lap or
imbricate.
In
this
context
it
is
apt
to note
that
there
may
be
cases
where
the
learned
single Judge
may
feel
disposed or
inclined
to issue
a
writ
to
do
full
and
complete
ju
tice
because
it is
to
be
borne
in mind
that
Article
226
of the
Constitution
is
fundamentally a
repository
and
reservoir of
justice
based
on
equity
and
good
conscience. lt
will
depend
upon
factual
matrix of
the
case.
Dr. Jaideu
Sidda
u.
Jtuprahash.
Siddha,
AIR
2007
M.P.
269
•
2007(3)
MPLJ
59/S
•
2007(5)
MPHT
388
=
2007(3)
JLJ
151
=
2007(2)
MPJR
361
(FB).
(c)
Limeline
other deci
ions of
M.P.
High
Court.·
( 1)
Full
B
nch
in
the
case
of
Dr.
Jtudeu
Sidda
u.
Jaiprakash Siddha,
AlR
2007
M.P.
269
=
2007(3)
M.PLJ
595
=
2007(5)
MPHT
388
=
2007(3)
JLJ
151
=
2007(2)
MPJR
361
(FB),
hold,
that
the
law laid
down
in
the
cases
of
Lakhan
Lal
Sonkar
v.
Gun
Carriage
Factory,
2007
(1)
MPHT
335
(DB};
St.ate
of
M.P.
v,
M?S.
Wakankar, 2007(1)
MPW
99;
and Smt,
Shiva
Dubey (Jhira}
v.
Sumit
Ranjan
Dubey,
2006(4)
MPHT
420
(DB)
nre
the
law
lay
down
the
law
correctly
being
in
con
onance
and accord
of
the
decision
of the
Apex
Court.
(2)
Full
Bench
in
the
case
of
Dr.
Jaideu
Sidda
u.
Jazprakash
Siddha,
AIR
2007
M.P.
269
=
2007(3)
MPLJ
595
=
2007(5)
MPHT
388
=
2007(3)
JLJ
151
=
2007(2)
MPJR
361
(FB),
bas
overurled
the
judgment
of
Division
Bench
of
M.P.
High
Court
in
the
case
of
M/s.
Rama
and
Co.
v.
State
of
M.P.,
2007(8)
MPLJ
164
•
2007(3)
MPIIT
325
•
2007(3)
JLJ
220
•
2007(2) MPJR
229
(DB) and
held
that
even
if the
Single
Judge
hearing
a
petition
under
Article
226 of
the
Constitution
against
the ordeT
passed
by
the
Court
or
Tribunal, a
writ
appeal
lies.
Before
the
Full Bench
could
deliver
the
aforesaid
judgment,
the
judgment
of
Division
Bench
in
t.he
Rama
and Co.
(suprn) was
challenged
before
the
upreme
Court
in
SLP
lllGH
COURT
(APPEAL TO
DBJ
ADHINIYAM,
2005
UIC)390
(vii)
The decision
rendered
in
Rama
and Co.
u.
State
of
M.P.,
2007(3)
MPLJ
154
=
2007(3)
MPHT
325
= 2007?ll)
MPJR
229,
i
binding
upon
the
parties
inter
se.
(viii)
The
decisions
rendered
by
the
Apex
Court
in
the
context
of
appeal
under
Letters
Patent
as
regards
maintainability
of
an
appeal
would
govern
the field
pertaining
to
maintainability
of
appeal preferred
under
section
2
of
the
2005
Adhiniyam.
(ix)
The
view taken
by
the
Full
Bench
in
Dr.
Jatdeu
Siddha
u.
Jaiprakash
Siddha,
2007(3)
MPLl
595
(FB) = AIR
2007
MP
269
=
2007(6)
MPHT
388
=
2007(2)
l\.1PJR
361
(FB)
cannot
be
treated
to
have
been
impliedly
overruled
due
to
dismiss
ion
of
the
Special
Leave
Petition
preferred
against
the
order
rendered
in
the
case
of Rama
and Co.
(supra).
(x) The
law
laid
down
in
the
case
of
Dr.
Jaideu
Siddha
v.
Jaiprokash
Siddha, 2007(3)
MPLJ
595
CFB)=2007(2)
MPJR
361
(FB),
holds
the
field
and
the
principl
laid
down
therein
will
have
full
applicability.
[per
.
Samvat
ar,
J].-The
object
for
which
the
reference
wa
made
appears
to
be
that
the
Division
Bench
could
not declare
a
judgment
rendered
by
the
Thr
e.Judge
as
per
incuriam
and,
hence
the
matte
was
referred
to
the
Larger
Bench.
This
Court
now
cannot
say
that
the
judgment
rendered
by
the
Apex
Court
is
not
applicable on
any
reason
particularly
when
the
judgment
in
the
SLP
is
tho
solitary
judgment
of
the
Apex
Court
on
the
provisions
of
the
Adhiniyam.
Earlier,
there
was
no
occasion
for
the
Apex
Court
to
examine
the
question
of
maintainability
in
the
light
of
the
provisions
of
the
Adhinlyam
which
came
into
force
with effect from
5th
April,
2006.
The
Apex
Court
dismissed
the
SLP
after
considering
the
foct
that
the
judgment
of
the
learned
Single
Judge
hearing
writ
petition
against
the Board
of
Revenue
we. not
in
original
jurisdiction,
hence,
writ
appeal
is
not
maintainable.
So
far
as
this
Court
is
cone
med,
the
view
taken
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
SLP
No.
9186/2007
is
a
binding
precedent as
th
ole
question
before
the
Supreme
Court
in the
said SLP
wa
about
the
maintainability
of
the
appeal
after
coming
into
force
of
Adhiniyam
of
2005
and
earlier
t.he
Supreme
Court
had
no
occasion
to deal
with
such
n
situation
Hence,
so
far
as
this Court
is
concerned,
said
view
has
attained
finality
and
cannot
be
reopened
in
view
of the
afore
aid
decision
of
the
Apex
Court,
Therefore.
judgment
in
SLP
No.
9186/2007
is
a
binding
precedent
which
i
to
be
followed
by
thi
High
Court
unlesi
the
view
taken
by
the
Apex
Court
in
the
said SLP
is
overruled.
Mano)
Kumar
u.
Board
of
Revenue,
2008(1)
M.P.L.J.
152
c:
2007(4)
MPHT
545
..
2007(ffi)
MPJR
328
(FB).
(b)
[As
decided
in
trengtb
of
three
Judge
Full
Bench)
-The
p?eacling
in
the
writ
petition, nature
of
the
order
passed
by
the
learned
smgle
Judge,
character
and
the
contour
of
the
order,
directions
issued,
nomenclature
given,
the
jurisdictional
pro
pective
in
the
constitutional
context
a.re
to
be
perceived,
It
cannot
be
said
in
a
hyper
technical
manner
that
an
order
pas
ed in
a
writ
petition,
if
there
is
assail
to
the
order

(C)
No.9186/07.
Said
SLP
was
dismissed
by
the
Apex
Court
by
holding
that
no
appeal
lies
before
the
Division
Bench
if
a writ
petition
JS
filed
before
the
High
Court
against
the
order
of
Board
of
Revenue
as
the
order
is
not
an
original
order.
(d)
Proviso
of
.2(1)
-Maintainability
of
bar
againat
an
Inter­
locutory order
[As
decided
in
strength
of
three
Judge Full
Bench],-.·The
proviso
stipulates
that
no
appeal
would
lie
against.
an
interlocutory
order.
But
an
eloquent and
pregnant
one,
when
an
interlocutory
order
ha
the
semblanc
of
final
order
or
affect
the
rights
of
the
parties,
it
can
be
treated
es
an
order for
all
practical
purposes.
The
said
exception
cannot
be
treated
in
absolute
terms
to
nullify
the
enactment.
Therefore,
the
order
has
to
be
a
final
order
by
way
of
final
disposal.
It
cannot be
regarded
es the
correct
interpretation
of
the
proviso
in
entirely,
for
a
writ.
Court
can
issue
direc­
tions
or
pass
orders
in
its
inherent
jurisdiction
which
can
assume
the
colour
r"
f!l.ality
and, at
an
interim
stage,
can
vitally
affect
the
rights
of
the
parties or
destroy the
rights
or
create
a
situation
by
which
the
relega-
:01.
wo
the
oriainal
stage
would
become
impossible.
Conclu
ions
in
seraanm:
(i)
The
PM\
1&0
to
Section
2(1)
of
M.P.
Uchcha
Nyayu]aya (Khand
NyayPeeth
Ko
Appeal)
Adhin.iynm,
2005
does
not
create
an
absolute
bar
to
prefer
an
appeal
to the
Division
Bench.
(ii)
An
appeal can be
preferred
against
an
order
regard
being
had
to
the
nature,
tenor,
effect
andimpnctofthe
order
passed by
the
learned
single
Judge.
(iii)
It
should
be
borne
in
mind
that.
instances
given
in referred
several
decisions
in
thi
case
are not
exhaustive
but
illustrative
in
nature,
becau
e
various
kinds/categories
of orders
may
be
passed
in
exercise
of
jurisdiction
under
Article
226 of the Con­
stitution
of
India.
(iv)
The
facts
in
each
case,
the
nature and
the
character
of
the
order
are to
be
crutinised
to
appreciate
the
trappings
of
the
same.
Arvind
Kumar
Jain
u.
State
of
Madhya
Pradesh,
AIR
2007
M.P.
276
=
2007(3)
MPLJ
566
=
2007{3)
MPHT
376
=
2007(3)
JLJ
187
=
2007(3)
'MP.JR
4
(FB).
2.
Some
writ
appeals
held
maintainable.-
[l]
Appeal
against
an
interlocutory
order.-Impugned
order
is
having
semblance
of
final
order
and
have
affected
the
rights
of the
appel­
lant.
Hence,
the
instant
appeal
is
maintainable.
Arvind
Kumar
Jain
v.
State
ofM.P.,
AIR
2007
M.P.
276
=
2007(3)
MPLl
565
Relied
on
.
Municipal
Corporation,
Gwalior
v,
Leela
Ram
&
Ors.,
AIR
2010
MP
219
=
2010(4)
MPLJ
110.
(2]
Appeal
against the
order
of
Singl
Judge made
in
cxerci
e
of
original
jurisdiction.-LPA
refused
High
Court
on
the
grounds
that
the
order
was
pas
ed
in
exercise
of
pow
r
of
supenntendence
under
Art
227
of
the
Constitution
of
India
therefore
LPA
is
not
maintainable
&
the
Apex Court's
earlier
order
only
waived
lhe
limitation,
Held,
that,
High
CHC)393
HIGH
COURT
(APPEAL
TO
DBJ
ADHINI'.'AM,
2005
Court
was
not
justified in
holding
that
Apex
Court's
earlier
order
only
waived the
limitation
for
filing
a
l;PA.
The
High
Court
wa
directed
to
dispose
of
?he
LPA
on merits
if
it
was
otb
rwis
free
from
defect.
On
that
core
alone
the
High
Court's
order
is
unsustainable.
In
addition,
the
High
Court
eems
t.o
have
gone
by
the
nomenclature
i.e.
th
de
criptlon
given
in
the
writ
petition to
be
one
under
Art.227
of
the
Constitution.
The
High
Court
did
not
consider
the
nature
of
the
controversy
and
the
prayer
involved
in
the
Writ
Petition.
The
prayer
was to
quash
the
order
of
assessment
passed
by
the
Asst.
Commissioner.
Commercial
Tax
levying
purchase
as
well
as
Entry
Tax.
The
High
Court
was
not
justified
in
holding
that
the
Letters
Patent
Appen.l
was
not
maintainable.
M.M.T.C.
Ltd.
v.
Commissioner
of
Commercial
Tax,
2009(2)
MPLJ
227
(SC)<FB).
[3]
Error
of
law
.-An
error
of
law
made
by
a
Tribunal
can
be
corrected
by
the
High
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution.
Writ
petition
was
filed
not
only
under
Article
227
but
also
under
Art.226
of
the
Constitution
therf"fore
the
order
passed
by
the
single
Judge
is
the
order
under
Article
226
of
the
Condtitulion
and
an
appeal
aguinst
the
order
was
available
to
the
Division
Bench
under
the
Act
of
2005.
Ramanuj Tiuiari
u.
M.P.
State
Co.opera/we
Tribunal,
200
RN
175.
9.
Some
writ
app
al
held
not
mnintainabJe.-
!11
Appeal
agaln
t
the
judgm
nt
and
decree
pa
ed
by
Ingle
Judge
in
app
llate
jurisdiction.-No
provision
has
been
made
in
the
M..P.
Act
No.
14
of
2006
for
filing a
writ
appeal
against
the
judgment ond
decre
passed
by
the
Single
Judge
in
appelJatcjurisdiclion.
Laxmtnarayan
u.
Shiela!
Gujar,
2010(1)
MPLJ
186
=
ILR
2009
MP
2503.
r2J
Refilling
of
the
writ
appeal
to
challenge
the
ame
order.-Ap­
pellants
sought
to
challenge
the
same
order
dated
15-
11-2006
dismissing
the
writ
petition
o.4641/06
nnd
which
was
assailed
in
previous
wriL
appeal
No.
718/06
and
got
it
dis
mis
cd
as withdrawn
and
eking
reference
to
a
larger bench.
Hold,
the
present
writ
appeal
is
not
maintainable
and
filing
of
pre
ant
writ
appeal
is
an
abuse
of
the
proce
s
of
the
Court
and
we
decline
to
entertain
the
vmt
ppenl.
On
perusal
of
the
pleadings
and
other
orders,
by
refilling
of
the
writ
appeal,
High
Court
1s
inclined
to
think
a
deliberate,
adroit
and
lngcnfous
attempt
has
been
made
to
crent.c
a
different
kind
of
impre
·sion.
The
appellants
have
cho.!"en
th
·ir
own
facts
and
put
forth
them
before
the
Court.
Once
U1ey
bnd
filed
the
writ
nppeal,
they could
have
got
it
adjudicated.
They
chose
not
to
do
so
1rnd
fi?ed
till
application
m
writing
and
withdrew
the
same
by
stating
that
after
lhe
deposit
of
thl'
amount
due,
the
appeal
hod
been
rend('red
infructuou
.
High Court
wouJd
have
been
under
obligation
to
answer
the
refer
•nee if
the
Court
had
been
convinced
that
the
wnt
appeal
was
maintainable
and
further
that
the
reference
at
the
instance
of
the
appellants
deserved
l-0
be
answered
but
as
the
factual
matrix
would
expo
it,
the
writ
llppeaJ wa
di
m1
sed
as
withdrawn.
While
di
m1ssrng
previous writ
appeal as
withdrwn
High
Court
granted
liberty
lo
approach
other
forum
or seek
remedy as
permissible
tn
law.
The
liberty
wa
not
taken
to
file
writ
appeal.
To
approach
other
forum
would
not
mean
to
file
another
writ
appeaJ
HIGH
COURT
(APP"EAL
TO
DB.)
ADHINIYAM,
2005
(HCJ392

<UC)395
HIGH
COURT
(APPEAL TO
DB.)
ADliJNJ"YAM,
2DD5
phrase
'sufficient. cause'
as
used
Ul
the
moin
provision.
Th
appended
explanation
is
only
to
provide an
addiaonal
upport
to
the
dominant
object
of
the
Act
in erder
to make
it
meaningful
and
purposeful.
An
explanation
C$lOOOl,
however,
take
away
a
statutory
right
with
which
any
person
under
statue
has
been
clothed
nor can
set at
naught
working
of
an
Act
by
causing
hindrance
by
its
interpretation.
Held,
that.
the
explanation,
which
has
been
attached has
to
be
understood
to
provide
the
additional
support
to
the
dominant
object
of
the
Act
for
giving
a
meaningful
purpose
and also
to
avoid
the
creation
of
any
obstacle
to
the
statutory
right
of
an
appellant
given
under
the
ststute.
Dr. Han.
Singh
Gour
Vishwavidyalaj·a.
Sagar
fM.P.)
v.
Rajeshuiar Yadau,
2008(4}
MPLJ
274.
2.
Meaning
of
word
',>etitioner'
used
in
explanation
attached.­
The word
'petitioner'
though
is used
in
the
explanation
but
it does
not.
mean
that
petitioner
who files
o
writ
petition
in fact
the word
'petitioner'
1
to
be understood
with
reference
to
the
context
of
sub-section
(2)
of
S
ction
2 of the
Adhiniyam,
2005
to
mean
and
to
be
understood
a a
party
who
file the
Writ
Appeal
and
not th
Original
Petilion.
Dr.
Harr
Su111h
Gaur
Vishwovtdyalaya,
Sagar
(M.P.)
u.
Rajeshuiar
Yado.u, 2008(4)
MPLJ
274.
3.
Power
to
make
rule•.·0}
The
High
Court
may,
from
time
to
tlme,
make rules
for
carrying
ou
all
or
any
of
the
purpose
of lhJs
Act,
(2)
1n
particular
and
without
prejudice
to
the
generality
of
the
foregoing
power.
uch rules
may
provide
for
the
procedure
of
filing.
bearing
and
disposal
of
appeal
under
sub-section
(31
of
Section 2.
4.
Repeal.-(1)
The
Madhya
Pradesh
Uchcha
Nyayalaya
(Letters
Patent
Appeals
SamapU)
Adhlruyam,
1981
(No.
29
of
1981)
ls
hereby
repealed.
(2)
Notw1th
tanding
such
repeal, anything
done
or
any
action
taken
under
or
In
pursuance
of
lhe
said
Act
and
which ha
attruned
the
finality
shall
not
be
reopened
in
any
court
of
Jaw.
COMMENTARY
1.
Third
appeal
burr
d.-Third
appeal
against
the
judgment
and
decree
of
learned
Single
Judge
of
High
Court
i
concerned,
the
same
stand
barred
under
S.lOOA of the Civil
Procedure
Code with
effect
from
1-2-1977
and
does
not
stand
revived
und
r
Section
4(1)
of
the
Adhiniyam,
2005.
Ratanlal
u.
Purshottam,
2006(4)
l\-lPW
620
(FB).
2.
By
repealing
provision
Clause
10
of Letters
Patent
not
reviv
d.-(i)
\Vhere
an
Act
1s
passed
repealing
a
repealing
enactment,
it
haJI
not
be considered
as
reviving
any
enactment
previously
repcnled
unle
s
words
are
ndded
reviving
the
enactment.
(ii)
The
gcnernl
rule of
construction
rn
relation
to
repeal
of
a
repealing
Act
and
observed thnt the
repeal
of
a
repenting
Act
does
not
rcvi.,•e
nnything repealed
thereby
unless
a
differ
nt
intention
m
the
repealing
statute
expressly
or
iroplicity
ap­
pears.
HJGH
COURT
(APPEAL
TO
DB.)
ADHINTYAM,
2005
(HC)394
challenging
the
same
order and
seek
reference
to
a
larger
Bench
by
incorporation
of such
a
prayer
in the
relief
clause.
Great
Galleon
Ltd.
11•
Union
of
India,
2009(2)
MPLJ
609
(FB).
4.
Availability
of Intra
Court
appeal
and/or
Right
of
appeaJ
.•
(t
is
provided
in
S.2(1)
that
an
appeal
shall
lie
from
a
judgment
or
order
pas
ed
by
one
Judge
of the
High
Court
in
exerci
e
of
original
jurisdiction
under
Art.
226
of
the
Constitution
to
a
Division
Bench
comprising
two
judges
of
same
High
Court.
Thus, an
Intra
Court
appeal was
all
though
available
only
against
a
judgment
and order
pa
sod
by one
Judge
of
the
High
Court
in
ex
rcise of
its
original
jurisdiction
under
Art.
226
of
the
Constitution
and
not
against
any
judgment
or
order
passed
under
Art.
226 of
the
Constitution
as
uch. The
legislative
intent
behind
Clause
10
of
the
Letters
Patent
and
Section
2 of
the
Adhiniyam
of
2005
wa
that
if
a
single
Judge
of
the
High
Court
hears
a matter
and
passes
an
order,
the
litigant
must
have
a
right
of
appeal
to
a
Divi
ion
Bench
of
the
High
Court.
The
right
ofapp
al,
therefore, was
not
available
in
every
writ
petition
was
heard
and
decided
by
one
judge
of the
High
Court.
Priyank
Chansoria
v.
High
Court
of M.P..
2009(4)
MPLJ
586
(DB).
5.
Right
of Writ
Court.-Writ
Court
can
curtail
the
relief
and that
would
not
tantamount
to
interfering
in
the
question
jurisdictional
fact
which
is
based
on
ample
evidence
or
material
fact. General
Manager,
Bank'
Note
Press,
Dewas
u.
Bank Note
Press
Offi.ce
Staff
Asso.
Dewo.s,
2008(4)
MPW 424
(DB).
6.
Jurisdiction.-A
larger
Bench
has
jurisdiction
to
reconsider
the
entire
matter afresh
and
redetermine the
issue involved
in
the
light
of
the
provisions
of
the
Act,
Rules
and
Regulations.
Pabitra
Mohan
Dash
v.
State
of
Orissa,
(2001)
2
SCC 4
0 Relied
on.
Great
Galleon. Ltd.
u,
Union
of India,
2009(2)
MPLJ
609
(FB).
7.
Third
appeal
barred.-Third
appeal
against
the
judgment
and
deer
ofleamed
Single
Judge
of
High
Court
is
concerned,
the
same
stand
barred
under
S.lOOA
of the
Civil
Procedure
Code
with effect from
1-2-1977
and docs
not
stand
revived
und
r
Section
4(1)
of the
Ad.hiniyrun,
2005
Ratanlal
u.
Purshottam,
2006(4)
MPW
620
CFB).
8.
New
ground
not
allowed
in
writ
appeal
argument.-ln
tu·?u·
ment
a new
ground
raised
by
the
learned
counsel
for the
appellant
which
was
not
taken
in the
writ
petition
as
well
as
in
appeal,
therefore
it
was
held,
when
the
ground was
not
raised
before
the
Writ
Court,
it
would
not
be
proper
for
this
Court
in
the
Intra
Court
appeal
to examine
th
question
afresh.
Azmer
Singh u.
Board
of
Revenue,
2007(4)
MPLJ
277 ...
2008
RN
21
=
2007(4)
MPHT
256
(DB).
B. Sub-
ection
(2)
of
Section
2:
1.
Scop
of the
explanation
appended
to sub-section
(2),;ln
absence
of
any
vagueness
in
the
main
section
the
ambit of
the
explanatton
cannot be
understood
to
mean
that
the
same
ie in the
clarificatory
nature
so as to
make
it
inconsistent
with
the
dominant
object
which
it
eem
to
be
and when
in
th
main
section
word
'
ufficient
ceuse' has
been
ui;ed
then
the
explanation would
not
control
or
restrict
the
meaning
of
the

<HC)396
H.C. OF
M.P.
CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT
RULES.
2006
Held.
in
the
absence
of
any
express
or
implicit
provision
in the
Adhiniyam
providing
for
appeal
from
a
judgment,
decree
or
order
by
learned
Single
Judge
under Section
96
of
the CPC
to
a
Division
by
virtue of the
rep
al
of the
M.P. Uchcha
Nyayalaya
(Letters
Pa
Appeals
Samaptt)
Adhiniynm,
1981
under
Section
4
of the 2005
hiniyam,
appeal
under
Clau
10
of the
Letters Patent
from
a
ju
and decree
passed by
learned
Single Judge
in
exercise of
appellate j
diction und
.r
ction 96
of the Cod
of
Civil
Procedure
are
not revived;
Smt,
Shashibai
v.
Smt
Reuabai,
2008(1)
MPLJ
92
•
2007(4)
MP
467(FB).
THE IDGH
COURT
OF
MADHYA PRADESH
CASE
FLOW MANAGEMENT
RULES,
2006
CONTENTS
PART!
l.
Short
title and Commencement
Il.
Defi.nJUons
Ill. Division
of
Cases
Into
DUTerent
Tracks
(A)
Wrtt
Petitions
(Bl
Other Matters
N. Writ
of
Habeas
Corpus
V. Mode
of
Service
VI.
First
Appeal
lo
Lhc
High
Court
(l)
Service
of
Notice
of
Appeals
(2)
Flllng
of
Documents
(3}
Preparation
of
Pap
r
Book
(4)
Filing
of
Written
Submissions
and
Time
for
OraJ
Arguments
(5}
Court
to
explore
posslbllity
of
settlement
Vil.
WrH
App
als
(n)
Intra-Court
Appeals
from
Interlocutory
Orders
In
Wrtt
Matters
(bJ
Other
Intra-Court
Appeals
VllJ.
Second
Appeals
1X.
Civil
Reasons
X.
Crim.lnaJ
Appeals
(I)
Express
Track
(2)
Fast
Track
(3)
Rapid
Track
(4)
Brtsk
Tracie
(5}
Normal Track

‹ Prev All Madhya Pradesh acts Next ›