1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR L.P.A.No.223 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.356 of 2000 (D) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and A.B.Chaudhari, JJ. DATE : March 12, 2007. Heard Mr. G.B.Lohiya, learned counsel for the Appellant. Counsel for the appellant states that the Original Writ Petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that, so far as maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal is concerned, the learned Single Judge in fact has exercised power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Looking to the tenor of the order, it appears that jurisdiction of this Court was invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the power exercised by the learned Single Judge is also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only. Hence, in view of the decision of this Court rendered in 2 L.P.A.No.56 of 2006, Kanhaiyyalal Fattelalji Upadhyaya – (Since deceased) through L.R. Smt. Rukmani wd/o. Kanhaiyyalal Upadhyay and Others .vs. M/s. Mahavir Tea Co., Nagpur and Others, this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the same is disposed of as “not maintainable”. JUDGE JUDGE ssj