Madhya Pradesh act 14 of 2006 : The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005

(HC)387HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DB.) AD/llNIYAM. 2005

THE MADHYA PRADESH UCHCHA NYAYALAYA

(KHAND NYAYPEETH KO APPEAL)

ADHINIYAM,2005

(Act o. 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 of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one Judge of the High Court made ln exercise of original jurtsdtctron.

3. Power Lo make rules.

4 Repeal.

TBE MADHYA PRADESH UCHCHA NYAYALAYA

(KHANO NYAYPEETB KQ APPEAL) ADHINIYAM, 2005

(Act No. 14 of 2006}

(Received the assent of the Prest.dent on the 28th March. 2006; ,sent first published en the ?Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Exaa...c,rdt· uyf. dated the 5th Aprtl. 2006.J

An Act to pl,'ovide for an appeal from a judgment Ol' oniel" 1Hed by one Jud&e of the High Court ln exercise of the original uisdlction, to a Division Bench. of the same lllgh Court.

Be It enacted by the Madhya Pradesh Legislature In the Ftfty- sixth ear of the Republtc of lndla as foUows:-

1. Short title and commencement.-( I) Tots Act may be called the

adhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) dhmiyarn, 2005.

(2) It shall be deem d to have come Into force on the lsl day of

Jly. 1981.

2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the 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 passed by one Judge of lhe High Court in exercise of original irtsdtctton under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Dlvi ton ench Comprising of two Judges of the same High Court:

Provided that no such appeal shall Ue against an Interlocutory rder or again tan order passed In exercise of supervisory jurtsdicl)f>n nder Article 227 of the Constltutlon of India. ? ,")

I 12) An appeal under sub-secuon ( 1) shall be filed within 45 days

'Om the date of order passed by a single Judge:

HIGH COURT {APPEAL m DEA) ABIIINIYAM. 2006 $0387 '7 5’ b I THE MADBYA PRADESH UCIICHA NYAYALAYA 4 l (KHAND NYAYPEEI’H K0 APPEAL) ADHINIYAM, 2005 1 [Act No. l4 alzmsl (Mlshed m Madhya mush nypalru [Asadhaan timed 54 E I06. p, 406111.) r c o N 'r E N T s l. Short rule and CummcnoemenL 2. Appml m me Dlmslon Bench al the High Courl {mm :1 Judgment or prder ol on: Judge of the ngh Cuun made lrr exeruae ol orlglnal junsdlcuon. 3 Farmer w make rules. 4. Repeal. THE MAnmrA PRADESK venom NYAYALAYA (KHAN!) NYAY‘E‘EETH SQ mm) mimmmu, 2005 [Act Nu 14012006) lik-cawed the assenr ry "w Preslderu m Lha zsrh March. 2006: l Ben! firs! publlshad m m- ‘Madhyn Pradesh (2mm tmraordl w}: dmed the 5m Apra. 2006‘] An Act «- pmvlde {or In appeal tma a lam”: or rmler find by umjme all me my: Court In :xamlu e: the arlpxurl Mann, to - mvlalaa Bunch ul‘ me me man cm 5c ll enacred by me Madnya Prad=5h Leglalalure In me Plftya slxur bra! the Republlc oHndla as lallow -4 l. shoe: due and cammemenp“) ms an my be called the , hya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeem Kn Appeal) lyarn. 2005 f (2] ll shall be deemed m have came mm Earn: an the lsl day or ply. 1981‘ 2. Appeal m the Mal-Ian Beach at the Inn- Cam bum a a: or order atone Judge a! mem CUnnm-da la zmcm sauna: lunadlauaa Am An appeal shall he fmm a Judgmzm or I121 passed by on: Judge at the Hun C(lun lrr amuse u! onglual Mellon under Arucle 225 onhe Cansmuupn allndla. la a nlvlslnrr huh Camprlsmg oftwojudges orrhe samt ngh Count Pruvldcd that no such appeal shall he agamst an Interloculm'y or against an ordtr passed ln exerelse ufsupcmsoryjuflsdlclgl n Ample 227 Dune Cansmuunn unndla. ”1 x 0 lzl An appcal under subsection ll) shall be mad MW: 45 ays the date 01 order paged by a slngle Judge: A A [,1 r/ a " ‘

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?eis 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)389uton COURT (APPEAL TO DB,) ADillNIYAM, 2005

HIGH COURT (APPEAL 1U DB.) ADlllNTYAM, 2005

Provided that any appeal may be admJtted after the prescrtbedperiod of 45 days, lf the petitioner satisfies the Division Bench that hehad 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 oftht sub-sectton.

(3} An appeal under sub- ection (1) shalJ be Jlled, heard anddecided in accordance with the procedure as may be prescrtbed by theHJgh 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 beunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India It would depend upon thereal 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 aspectsand many a facet as has been empha ized in the aforequoted deciaicns ofth Apex Court. The pleadings, as hos be n indicated herei.nabove, also

ll-mlaaa man COURT (APPEAL m 125.; ADHINIYAM 2005 ”Eavédigldmal any appeal may he adirutted an pr 0 aye lithe petlttener antletlmr the Dlvletan hen h had eiimetenl muse for not preten-lng the appeal wlthln hugh :29? Explmflnn The tact that the petltlnner wna rrilsled h an praetlce or Judgment of the High Court ln asctnalmng afooofgflf; the presumed penrid may he aumeient eauae wtthln the meaning of thls subrsccuon. the presenbtrl An appeal iinder auheeetlon (I) shall he fllcdi heard and deal ed in actordance with the rm: mgh mm- p edure as may he preaonhed by the COMMENTARY s v N 0 P s l s A Suheserklon ll) oiSemon 2: 1 Wm appeal rigalnirt an order . Mainuiinahility ufs Full Bench deeiaione Some wnt appeal: held maintainahle Some writ appeala held not maintainehle. Avmlablhly otlatrn Conn appeal and/or R. ht are l Rightr annt Cnun. s W” I Jurisdiction Third appeal hat-red . New ground not allowed in writ appeal argument ub—aection m or Semen 2 l. Scopeo! the explanation appended te subsection (2) 2. Meaning orword 'pelilinner‘ need in explanation attached A Suh~szctinn 41) «Section 2; l Writ appeal ago-hat an order- Matutainahnity of~Full Bench n ) Iper realai-ity Judgment by tour Judgea (S.Samvatlar .1. rear tr_a The maintainability are writ appeal hora an order or the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aipeet and cannot he put mm a :lrmqackel. lorraula lt rennet he stand with i-aatheraatiral exactitude li would depend upon the pleadinge in the writ petition, nature a! the order panned hy the learned sing Judge. character and the mutant of the order, duu'uanl iaaued, nomenclature given and the ,uriadirtitmal prerpeetive in the eon tntional context are to he perceived. lt aannot be said in a_hypera_eehnical manner that an order panned in a writ pelllmui ii there ta mod to the order emerging hen. the Inlenor THbIIlIl-l or Sunder-donate Courta haa m be treated ol the time for all purpeaea to be under Article 227 olthe commotion onndia It would depend upon th: real nature or the order paaaed by the learned single Judgel Tn elabora'! whether the learned single Judge haa exereiaed hie jurigdlmnn under Article 226 or under Artiele 227 or hoth vmuld depend upon variaua upon: and many a {aoet as her heed amphaai the aforeqnoted dedainna at the Apex Conn. The pleading]. aa haa heeii tadieated herein-have, alan udvdd emm E dec may COURT (APPEAL m an I ADHINIYAM, 2005 ("0389 usume irnirienae eignirieanee lt would not he an overeinphaeia to ataie that an order in a writ pet on can fit mm the auhtle canmux otArtirlee 225 and 227 or the Corn tian in a renipoaite manner and the, can mmcldm ooeiot. nuerlap nr iriihi—ieate in this context it it apt to note that there may he eaeea where the learned single Judge may feel disposed or inclined in issue a writ to do full and complete iuatice heeauee it 15 to he home in mind that Anlcle 22s or the Courtitutian ia [undoinentn rrpiioitory and reaervoir oriuatiee haaed an equity and good eonteienee lt will depend upon factual matnx or eaoh care In wow u! the atereaaid premised reaeons, we are ii: the huinhlo View thot dirmieral of an appeal {mm Rama and Ca (1 State o/M p, - 07 mm: 15‘ e 200w) mam-325 e 20070.1)MTJR 229 mm, in not a hin p precedent re there are earl Judgmenu in the field and the ngh Court hound lo lollow the earlier zdsmns ah per the 1 w laid down Union 0/ lndm u Raghublr sided tdeadl by ”at etc , AIR 1929 so 1 .‘K Indtrm 0 Corporation Ltd v Mumcipal Cerpnmttao, AIR 1995 so 14an NS m u Carparulmll or City 0/ Mrmgnlam, 199914) soc 591. Chandra Prulmsh o Stare nf UP, 2002 Am saw 157:, Jabalp r Bur 01:97 Conclmians: la VIEW 0! our aforenud analyaia we proceed to record our mneluaionr in Sena“ ;. ) A power ue the writ ie onginnl and the jurisdletion exerr ciaed ia angl al iuriidietion tiil Prncnednlg! under Artiele 226 or the Conatitution are in exer- eiae nf original ioriadietion or the High Court whereas the proceedings in ated under anlcle 227 ot the Cnnsututmn are eupemeory in nature t 7 When a writ ia iaaiied under Article 226 oi the Conetitutinn it in lhsued in exeroiee or original iuriadietinn whether ae Trihurial or an hirenor Court or Adminirtrative Author-l er The power exercised tinder Anlrle 226 mm Conat exercise ororigi lunadlnm and not eaperviaa , Jun tion lvl Exermse nf anpervraoiy power and power nieuperiatendeaee i. not to he equated with the nrigninl or ouperinaory Jurisdiction l J The order pasazd m SLP wt ‘11 9186/2007 m a declarntlan law under Mule )6) of th: Cunalitulmn hm Lhn High Court ir hound to fall-2w the earlier demiona m the field regard heing had to the ooneept a! pmedenu ae per law laid down hy the Apex Cam and the five Judge Bench demaion in .ldbalpur Bite Upemlars Anacmmm u Stale 0/ MP, 2003(1) MP1.) 513 : maul mm the (Flat

(HC)391HIGH 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, 2005UIC)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?eaclingin 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

lactaso HIGH COURT IMPEAL m um ABHINI'YAM. 2005 state ofMP.. 2mm» Min 229. ii binding The deeirione eodered by the Apex Court in are mm .1 eppeel under Letter-r intent or regerd. meiotrinrhiiity or... upperl would govern the field permitting to meinteinehility pl, epperi preiorred tinder retried 2 oithe 2005 Adhmiwm. The view taken hy the Full Bench in Dr. .1an Kidd/la o, Jnipmlearh siddha. 2007l3lMl=Ll 595 in): “312007 mm = 2007(5) mm 393 = 2007(2) MPJR 36) mm unimt he i treated to have been impliodly overruled due tn dirmierion t1 the Specie! Leave Petition wefernd ogriiirt the order reodrr-d in the core oi Reina end Ca trupre) The low leid down in the core or Dr Joideu Siddha or i .Inlpmkorli Siddha.200713)MFU 595mm: 7(27M'F-m351 ‘ {FBL hrldr the lield end the printipler lrid dawn therein will have run npplitnhility. [per 9. Hunvltlll'r ill-The obiect ior which the reference wee ined- rppeerc In he that the Divielon Berth eould not detlere e Judgment rendered by the Threedudge as per LM‘uriam rhd, hence the metre wee reiemd to the erger Bench. ’i'hie Cmm now nannut ray that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court ii riot eppherble on rny rerron pnrtirulerly when the judgment iii the SLP ii the rolitrryrudgment oithe Aper Court on the provirionr or the Adhuiiyam Eerher. there wee no oeereion fur the Apex Court to ermine the quorum oi mrinteiorhility in the light oitho provirionr oi the Adhiniyeiii which come into three with edert from 5th April, 096. The Apex Court dlrmirred the SLP otter conridei-ih. the ten thet the judgment oi the kind Single Judge herring writ petiom again-t the Board at Marine wu no! in engine! Jurizdiztiml, henue, wri‘ upper] it not iorintrmehle, 512 far as thi Conn IE concerned. the View taken by the Supreme CUM _ in sue No. 5188/2007 u a binding precedent or the role quemnn befm‘ : the Supnme Court in the raid SLP wrr rhout the inninteino unh- rpperi otter coming into ioree or lidhiniyrni oi 2005 rod e Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with rurh n rituetidn. flEflv w (or or the Court is canoerned, cord View her rttoiiied finality and round be reopened in view of the rioreeeid d omie Apex Court. Theretoie. judgment in SLP No glad/2007 re re riding precedent which ll m 9- iollorrtd by thir High Cnurt unloir the View trier. by the Apex Court in the raid sun ii overruled Manly Kumrr v. Board ofheoenue, 2009(1) mu. mi - mm) mm m - zoo-lam mm am (pm (h) [A- decided in otreiilth of three Judge- Full neon: l.-'l‘h- . pleedinge in the writ petition. rieture oi the order pureed hy the lui-nnd ling|e Judge, rheretter ind the contour of the order, direction. inund- oomeurlrture given. the juriedietioorl ororpeetivo in the oonititiiti'ltn‘l mount In to he perceived lt cunnot he eri ' e hyper technical iii-mlll thrt In order prreed in r writ petition. ii there ir rrreil to the order HIGH COURT (APPEAL To an; AnlilNIYMl, 2W5 (HC)39| mm [mm the inienor trlhnnni or euhordinele court. he. te. he treeted .ii the nine cor ill purpore. to he porter Articl- 221 oithe Conrritutinn of indie Fhr-mlofl ueod in exorcise durum-l lurindietioo under Article and o! the Comtlturinn in Soction l oldie Aet eennot he ‘ioenere-trlotedoudooonruedmeeninrheaurrenorderp-e-ed irrewritpetithincrn tnntrmounttornorderuoderhrndeezzernd227 or the Corrtitution oilndie in - ould depend upon the reel ulura oi die ordrr peered hy the learn tingle Judge. 1h eletiomte: Whether the leeriied rinple Judge hr. exereiied hie )un’ndimon under Article 226 or under Article 227 or hoth would depend upon verioui erpeeth A: he. been held in the cure otsuryr per F... v. Ram Chnnder Rel. AIR 2003 SC 30“ e writ oieertiorrr-l cu: he ironed under Article 226 or the Conrtirution ogrinrt on order of e tritruoel or on order peered by the rnhorduirte Court. In ruurterreotielity, it eronot he put in r air-iv jacket iorroul thet rny order oithe loomed tingle Judge thri dorlr with In order one horn on inienor trihuoel or the ruhordinrte Court ir on order under 221 rtthe Con or. oilndir end notrn oidernnder Article 226 of th Courtitutioii it would not he on overeniphoei. to rtote ttmt on order in o writ tioo can fit into the subtle ronmur oi Articles 225 end 227 oi the Con-ritutien in r comporite menner and they eon roinride eo-uo‘t. over-lep or imhricote in ' oontext it to opt to note thrt there any or three where the learnad iior ineliood to irrur e writ to do dill end romp home in mind thet Artttle 225 orth- Conrtr mpoeitory irid rrrervoir oirurtr'er hired on equity end good toneei it will depend upon recto-l mrtrlr or the me. Dr. .Irideo Sidda o Jotproirtli Siddha, AIR 2001 M. m . 2007(3) me! still . 200ml MPH'I' sea - 2mm) .11.: m . 20mm mun ui (ml. (cl Hindu-re other deal-Inn: oiMJ'. nigh (xii-rt- (1)Fu|l Bench in the east oi m. .Iri‘der Sidda u, drrproluieh SWha, AIR 2007 AL? 289 = 2007(3) MP1.) 595 n 2007151 MPHT 3H8 = 200713) JL] 151 e 2007(2) MP-m 361 rm, hold. thrt the lrw lrid down in the toner oi hrlthro Lnl Sanka: v. Gun Carriage rectory. m in mm- m (DB): Stete oi MP vi M.s. wilteoltrr. mm) Mm 99; end Suit Shlve Duoey (Jhimt v. siirnit kaolin Duhey. mom MPHT 420 mm are the law lry dawn the luv tenderly being in eoruoornee rod reoord oi the deeieiooe or the Apex Court. (2\ mill neneh to the tree own Jridro Stddn o. .Iniprnltnrti siddIi-r. AIR 2007 up. 2n = 2mm) mu 595 = 2007(5) Mrlrr are e 2mm .11.; m = 2007(2) MPJR atll (FE). her ooenirlrd thejudrniont oiniviilon north anP. High Caurt in the core of wt. item. iiid Co, v, State oi M.P., 5001(3) mu 1M . mm) mm m . 2001(3) :14 no . mm mm :29 (DB) end held thrt Wm lithe sing-l. dudee hennng - piling: under Artie 22s orthe (hurututiorr egeinrt the order [Ill-led bylhanunanhbun-l,lwritlppenllin.lkloanuflBunchcould deliver the Ifnmlud judgment, the judmnt oi Divuioo Hench iii the Rome rod Car (iuorel wu chrlleoped before the Supreme Court in 31.x7

(C) No.9186/07. Said SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court by holdingthat no appeal lies before the Division Bench if a writ petition JS filedbefore the High Court against the order of Board of Revenue as the orderis 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],-.·Theproviso stipulates that no appeal would lie against. an interlocutory order.But an eloquent and pregnant one, when an interlocutory order ha thesemblanc of final order or affect the rights of the parties, it can be treatedes an order for all practical purposes. The said exception cannot be treatedin absolute terms to nullify the enactment. Therefore, the order has to bea final order by way of final disposal. It cannot be regarded es the correctinterpretation of the proviso in entirely, for a writ. Court can issue direc-tions or pass orders in its inherent jurisdiction which can assume thecolour r" f!l.ality and, at an interim stage, can vitally affect the rights ofthe 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 anabsolute 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 thelearned 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 ishaving 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

. MunicipalCorporation, Gwalior v, Leela Ram & Ors., AIR 2010 MP 219 = 2010(4)MPLJ 110.

(2] Appeal against the order of Singl Judge made in cxerci eof original jurisdiction.-LPA refused High Court on the grounds thatthe order was pas ed in exercise of pow r of supenntendence under Art227 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 onlywaived the limitation for filing a l;PA. The High Court wa directed todispose 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 HighCourt eems t.o have gone by the nomenclature i.e. th de criptlon givenin the writ petition to be one under Art.227 of the Constitution. The HighCourt did not consider the nature of the controversy and the prayerinvolved in the Writ Petition. The prayer was to quash the order ofassessment passed by the Asst. Commissioner. Commercial Tax levyingpurchase as well as Entry Tax. The High Court was not justified in holdingthat 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 correctedby the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ petition wasfiled not only under Article 227 but also under Art.226 of the Constitutiontherf"fore the order passed by the single Judge is the order under Article226 of the Condtitulion and an appeal aguinst the order was available tothe Division Bench under the Act of 2005. Ramanuj Tiuiari u. M.P. StateCo.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 IngleJudge in app llate jurisdiction.-No provision has been made in theM..P. Act No. 14 of 2006 for filing a writ appeal against the judgment onddecre passed by the Single Judge in appelJatcjurisdiclion. Laxmtnarayanu. 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 dismissingthe writ petition o.4641/06 nnd which was assailed in previous wriLappeal No. 718/06 and got it dis mis cd as withdrawn and eking referenceto a larger bench. Hold, the present writ appeal is not maintainable andfiling of pre ant writ appeal is an abuse of the proce s of the Court andwe decline to entertain the vmt ppenl. On perusal of the pleadings andother 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 adifferent kind of impre ·sion. The appellants have cho.!"en th ·ir own factsand 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 tillapplication m writing and withdrew the same by stating that after lhedeposit of thl' amount due, the appeal hod been rend('red infructuou .High Court wouJd have been under obligation to answer the refer •nee ifthe Court had been convinced that the wnt appeal was maintainable andfurther that the reference at the instance of the appellants deserved l-0 beanswered but as the factual matrix would expo it, the writ llppeaJ wadi m1 sed as withdrawn. While di m1ssrng previous writ appeal aswithdrwn High Court granted liberty lo approach other forum or seekremedy 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

lllcimz man mun-1 wow 7r) 1;» I ADMINIYAM, 2005 may CouRT worm m om mum/yew, 2005 llamas ‘ 1 (C) No.9186m7. Said sw wu diamireed by the Apex Court by h Can" waa not justified in that no appeal lie. heiore the Divinion Boneh il “a ' a writ petitinn i. waived the liniitatiou (or r harm. the High Court Ignintt tho ardarm'BnIrd of Revenue e. the out it not an original order. (d) Proviso of 53(1) -M.|lnl-1.nlb|.l.lly at her null-int an In... loci-wry order [Aa decided in atrei-igth omtree Jude-n Full Henoh1,.. 1% provino etipulatee that no appeal would lie againat In interlocutory men But an eloquent and pregnant one, when an interlocutory order ha. a. aetrihlanee tin-inal order or aileet the righte elthe parties. it can he the“ ea an order {at all puttical purpoeee. 'l'he iaid exception cannot be tmlhd in absolute tenna to that the Lem" Patent Appeal wee not mmnmmuble. M Commissioner o! Commarcla] Tu. 3009(2) ML! 221 (SC Fl-J . interpretation of the provien in entirely, for a writ Court can ieaue dine. tionn or pale nrdero m it. inherent Jnnhdjct ion which can name the uoznur n‘ finality and, at an interim etage. ean vitally reflect the num it the partiea or deatroy the righta or create a situation by which the reel... t:nh .o the nrimlml .tege would become inipuaiihle. Cmelulion. In sari-rim: iii The nmiieu in Section 2m um}. Ueheha Nyayeleya lKhand Nynypeeth Kn Appeall Adhiniyani. 2005 does not create In ahaolute her to preiernn appeal to the Diviaion Bench (ii) An appeal can he pielerred epainat an order mgnrd being had to the nature, tenn,etreet and irnpeetorthe order pee-ed hyttie leurned .ingle Judge iiiil li ehould he home in mind that unmea- g|v2n in referred ieveral decilimu in thin rare ere not erhauative but lupin-id" in nature. heeauoe various kinda/enregenee or ordere my be penaed in e'xel'uan oilunndittion under Amcla 226 or the Can- imution ol'lndi'a. iiv) The net. in eaeh ease. the nature and the eharneter olthe order are to he imiunieed to appreeiete the trapping. oitlie ianio. Arm/Ad Kpniar Join e, Store or Madhyd Prudelh. Am 300! up. 21d -m7isl mum-200713) MP1” 515- mm J'L! m a 2001(8) mm 4 (Fm 2. suede welt appeal. held mint-nub];- [1] Appell union In interlocutory ordee,.lrnpuped order in eerrihlante ol final order end here oriented the right. olthe - 1~ lent. Hem-V. the instant appeal it maintainahle, Ant-ind Kurnar .lain v ‘ State ofM.Pr,A!R2m7 MP. 276 e znmlal Mm 565 Relied ant Municip-l Corporution. Gwalior v. Leah lien or 011., AIR zoio MP m . molt) 3. Some wrfl appeal. held not mlintnin-hlee lll Appeal again-t thejudgment and deeiee penned by Single Judge in appellate iuriedietion..ltn pruvuiau has heen made in the M p. Art Nut it or 2006 he filing a writ appeal again he ,udgrnent and decree parted hy the Single Judge in appellawlurla n. Laxmlrmmyun i Shawn! Gujnr, maul mu m - [LR 2009 MP aorta [2! Remit" of the writ upped to nhlllanle the lame ordered!» pellanta naught to challenge the aanie order dated 16- 11-2006 diomi ing the writ petition NnA64l/06 and which met aaaeile in previoua appeal No.1)8/06 and pi; i diorniaaed Eu withdrawn and teelurig relerenne to a larger bench. Held. the preaent writ appeal in not meintnrnahle and other orders, by refilling er a deliberate, admit and dilrerent kind or impression The appellanta have ehoeen their own lane and put lorth thern heroie the chin. Once they had riled the writ appeal, they could have gal. it afiudicnledv They ehnee not to do to rind filed an epplr tion in writing and withdrrw the earne by stating thnt alter the [2] Appeal nnlnn the under of single Judge made in exam-In u! mmljufl-dictioneLPA refuted High Court on the gmundl Lh-t the order will pended in earereiae of power oreuperintentienee under M- 227 oi the Con-titntion orlndi. uiorelere um it not nitintainahle At 9M Apu Cmm'l earlier order nltly wllved the limitation Held. that, Huh ante deemed to he ‘ answered hut In the [actual rnatnx would expua e writ appeal was , ' diirnieaed ae wilhdrlwn While diorniaaing pr ioue writ Ippeal es withdrwn High Cnurt granted liherty to approaeh other luriuu or eeeli rem a. perrnieeihle in law. The liherty war not To approach nther lorurn would not mean to talren to die wnt appeal. file another writ appeal

<UC)395HIGH 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 byincorporation 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 .• (tis 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

(Hciagd may comer [APPEAL 10 am AumNIvAu, 2005 ehailenging the aaeie arder and peer relerenue lo a luger he, inrnrporation of rueh a prayer in the relief rluuee. Grant Galleon when huddle. mm mm one am) Intr- Cenrt .ppe Indlm- Right eta, . than an appeal ehau i rrrnn a judgment peered hy nae .ludge olthe High Court in erare at nriginal in Bench tempt-lain, . Thu. An lntn churt appeal we. |.I.I . eve hle only againet Judgme and nriler pea-ed hy an. Judge of l-lig Caun in erem at angina] juriadietinn under Art 226 er inn and not againet any ,- gruent in order pea-ed under an; m nrthe Canarirutlen u eueh. The legiala e intent hehind Cl-ull i ' lettere patent and Suction 2 erthe Adhmiynm of was wet than leaudgeotahelllgh Courthearearna randpnueeannrder, l gent rnuat here a right nrappeal Dtvil heed. ntthe High i every writ petirinn . heard and decided try nn dge ntthe irdi lefl. Priyunk Chen-art. a. High Court nfMP-. moot mm 586 (DBL 5. Right. of Writ chum—Writ chm cln mmil the reliel and that wnu net tantamount tn terrering in the nueru'nu Jurisdictional rant which in haeed an ample idem or material raet. GeMmlMWr, Bend Nate Pm Drums u, Bar-I! Nate Prev: omee sue/mm newer, would) mu.) 4 pm at Jn OIL-A larger laeneh hue juriadieu'en tn reeenaider the entire matter arrerh and redeteirnine the inue invalved in the licht el the proviamm er the Anti Rules and Regular J’nbitm Muhan Duh v. State vfonun. moon 2 sec 430 Reliad nnr Greer anllean Ltd, in Union arlhdm, mm) mu m (Fl). 1. Thin! appeal barred Third appeal againet the judrpnent Ind decree unearned Single .ludge enligh Cam“! in eeneerued. the aarne etand harred under sum Civil Procedure Cede with eileet rrnrn 12-1977 and deea nrn atand under Section «1) er the Adhiniylme zoos. Ratenlnl t. parrhetin .2000“) mu m (rm 8. New greund ant nun-ed ln writ. appeal argument-la m meet a new grained raiaed hy the amed enunael fur the appellant whieh Wu net taken in the writ petitinri as well an in appeal, thnrof it wu held, when the greunri wee net reared hernre the Writ onurt, il wnuld not he preper for thir Caufl in the latra Court appeal tn examine the «usual: alreeh. Azmer Singh u. Boar-d nrneuenne, mm) M?” 2-17 . moon! :1 . m7“) MPH'K‘ and mm B. Sub-Beam 2) of Section 2: 1. deep. at the expl-nlflan appended to lub-uctlnn (IL-In lhlenm nieny vegueneea in the main eeetian the arnhit nlthe oxgflnnlflm eannet he under-teed he mean that the earae in in the elenricatary rum" an a: m inalre it incennetent with the derainant object which it loml in he and when in the main mliarl ward 'rumt-ient eaure' ha been M then the explanation weuld net mntrel rrr mtrict the melhll'll HP '1“ may col/KT 1.4me m Dru ADHINIYAM. m5 (H0395 . 'aufficlent eauae' ar need in the main pmvllian. The appended , .lanatinn i- enlytn prnindean addrnnnal auppnrt w the dminmtobim ‘gthe Act in erder in male. ‘ eeuingrul and purpoaufuL An explanation gamut. hawaver, tahe "my tatutery nght with whrea any perenn under ..t.tue hu heen clothed nnr aet at naught working planet by tanning thiudrnnfl by iu interpretation Held, that, the eeplnnatinn. within her .haen attached ha. tn he undenwod in provide the addi Iuppon lo the dominant object ufd'le Act far givrrrg u meaning‘ul purpose and in nveid the creation or In! nbateele m the dummy right ofnn appel given under the riatute. Dr, Han sirgh Gaur Viahwavldyalaya, sirgnr . Knjelhwar Yndav. 2m( MP” 27‘ earring eternrd ~peti r“ need in explanatinn attaehed - The ward ‘petitinner' though in used “I the explan bu t does not mean [Jul pajama! Whn film a writ pelitmn in fact the ward 'petifianer’ i- to he underateed with refemnoe tn the pretext n! sub-eeetian [2) of 2 arthe Adh ' arn, 2005 to Ineln and in he underamod at a party he Writ Appeal end an: the Origmnl Petillan. Dr Han ugh t wnvldynlaya. Sager mp.) u meshiuer Yadav, mam mu :. pm in inure rule-all) The High Cnun my" lrarn urne tn time. niahe rulee tor carrying cul all or anyul the purposes of lhle Act. (2) In particular and wlmnul prejudlce to the generality of the larrgaing power. such mks may prrnnde [hr the procedure at hung. hearing and diapoeal of appeal under subsection (3] ol Secuan 2. d, “pg-1.41] The Madhyn predeah llehcha Nyayalaya (letters patent Apprala Sainapul Adhiniyarn. 1991 ma. 29 of 198]} is herehy repealed. [2) Notwithstanding aunh 1':me anylhing dune or any acunn taken under or in pursuance at the said Act and which has attained the finality shall nnt be reopened |n any court 0f lew. COMMENTARY 1. Third appeal barred—Third appeal againat the Judgment and decree alienated Single .ludge nirligh Cnlln ia concerned, the name stand barred underSJflOA enlie civrl Preeedura cede with effect from 1.21977 and data not “and mivld under Smmn 441) of the Adhulynm, 2005 Rumnlal r. Panheiinrn, 2mm MPH rm mm. 2. By repenling prnvlrinn Cluue in or Letter- Peter-t not revivadAi) Where an Ad ii peered repealinp a repealing enactment, it rhell not he epnaidered u reviving any eneeirnea revieuely repealed unler wrnda are added revmng the enaetraeat. I) The general rule er com! chain in relatiee in repeal of. repealing he and chimed thnt the repe in repealingm deer not nvwe anything repealed thereby unlerr a dirrerent intentlnr. in the repealing etatute erprearly rrr xmpliclty ap penre.

<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

molsBfi no. or M P CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT RULES. 2009 Held, m nae upkepee or any expren pr mpum pmlpp rn u» Adhiniym pwvidlng for Appeal from . judgment, decree In order by learned Single Judge under Section 96 ohhe CPC an r Divillon by wnuz or are reperl n! the MR Uelwh. Nyeyeleye amen Appe-lr Smpn) Adhiniynm. 1951 under Sealer. e at Lha mos himylm, eppeel urrder Clause 10 uflhe [ener- were: [rum 3 ,u and decree peeeed by learned Slug]: Judge in exereiee puppenm‘ dlculm under Section 96 nfme Cede prawn preeedure m not - sm Shnshlbal u Sm! mm, mm mm 92 . may 4671”}. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CASI FLOW MANAGEMENT RULES, 2006 c 0 N T E N T 8 PART I Shun Lid: and Ccmnwncemem V Definitions V mvlslon OI Cases Into Dmerml Tack: W erl Pemmns (B) omer Maners . Wm pf Hebeas Corpus . Made of Service . First Appeal 10 m: ngh Cam (I) Service er Nance of Appeals (2) Filmg arbocurrrerua l3) Prepmuon annpeT Book [4) Hung or wmlen Submlsalona and 11m {or Om! Argummls (5) Cuun m explore posmbllfly of ulna-hem , Wm Appeals m InwarCaurI Appeale {mm lmerlocmory Ordm lp Maners (b) Omerlntm-Coun Appeals , Second Appetds . cml Eta-Ion! . cnmlnal Appeals In Expreea 1‘ka (2) Fasl'h'ack l3] Rapld Track [4] ank'l‘mnk 15) Normal Track