1:If'l"'^'NS^SMNSBSl® h> ^^ H|GH_CajjaTOECHHATTlSG H AT nLASPUR CORAM: - HON'BLESHRIJAGDISHBWU.LA, /^. CJ & HON'BLE SHRI SUN1L KUMAR SINHA. J. PEtlTIONER: WritADDeal(PRlNo.384Sof2007 Baidhnath Nag S/e. Davi Singh aged about 30 ^ars, Occupaijon — Kotwar, R/o. Vijlage Kohakapal, Tahsil — Jagdalpu^ Distncl - JagdalRur(Bastar) (C.G.) Vs. RESPQNDENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 7. 8. 9. The Board of Revefwe Bilaspur, Through theChairman, CircultCourt Jagdalpur (C.G.) The Collector, Jagdalpur, djstrict - Jagdalpur (C.G.) The Additional Collec^Br, Jagdalpur, Distript- Jagdalpur 01G.) The Sub Divjsiona) Offkser, Jagdalpur, Dtstrict - Jagitelpur The Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, Dtetnct - Jagdatpur(C.G.) Tulsi Ram SAa - Rajibo lUlehra E®ed about35yeare, Smt. Padma Bai W/o aged about §5yeare. Jeevnatti 110 Sonadhar Sto - Mata Mehra aged abotit40years. Phpel Chand S/q - (aiogeshwar Mehi»%edabout24^ars, Res. No.6 to 9all R/o- Wllage Kohakapat, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, District-.fagdalpur (^istaf) (C.G.) {Writ appeal under Section 2 (1)ofthe High eourtofehhattisga(fe(Appeal toDivisionBench)Act,200% ss^fSSSssi-^^^^^^'^^^^^^^ 3 IS^ 1^^ ^^^^ Bl ssai ^^ j 111 2- - <.- ft Present: None appears on behalf ofthe appellant. Shri PrashanttUtishra,AdditlonalAch/oGateGeneralw(thShri U.N.S. Deo, Govemment Advocate for 8ie State/ responclentsNo.1to5. — ORALJUDGn^T (Passedbh13"ftugust, 2007) The following oral judgment of the Gourt was paswd t^ Hon'ble Jagdish BHalla, AgG.l. This writ appeal arises out (rf an order passed in VW^ Pettfibnflled under Articte 227 of the Constttution of India. Before coming into force of ttie High Gourt of GhhatUsgarh (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (forshort the Act, 2006'), intra court appeals were being filed umler the provisions of the Madh^i Prad^h Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent AppealsSampaS Adhiniyam, 1881. Thesaid provision of Letters Patent Appeal Was repealed by the Act, 2006 arul by the same notification, Chhattisgarh High Gourt Rules, 2005 caree into foreeWherein the prevision of appeal is providedunder Rule 2 which is as fbllows; - "2. Appeal to the Division Bench <rf tha Hlgh Court from a Judgment or ofder of one judgeoftii®Hi^i Court made ln exereiseof priginaljurisdictton:- (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgmehtororder passed by one Judge of the High Court in exerotee of wiginal jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the ConstttuUon of India, to a DMsion Bench comprising of two Jy^es of the sanne Migh Couit fiiiilK V! i t Provided tt»atno sucb approl shall lle against an interioeutory order or against an onier pass«jin exereise of supervfsory jurisdiction uneler Aitfcte 227 ofthe Constitution of India. ^) An appeal undersub-swtion (1) Shadl be filed within 4S days fromthe dateof order passed ^y a slngte Judge. Provided that any appeal m^ be achnKted after ttie prescribed period of 45 days, if ttie pdWoner satisfies the DMsfon Bench ttiat he hadf sufffeient cause for not prefemng the appeal within such peripd. Explanatton: - The fact thatthe petBioner was misled by any order,practice orjudgnient ofttie Hi^i Court in ascertainlng the prescribed period may by sufRcient cause wiUiin the meaning of this sub- secfion." From the perusalofSieaforesaidprovisien, <t is cr^d deartttat no appeat shatl lie against an order passed in exeroise of supOvtso^ juristiiclion under Aiticle227 OT the ConrttuUon of tndia. Same viwv has been taken by a Dwiston Bench of this Court In WA. (PR) No. 3488/20W which one of us (Hon'bte Shri Jagdish Bhalla, Aetingj ChitfJustice) is a ^4ember. tn light of the above di»;i®ston,(nfraCoyrt appeal is n<* maintainable agamst ttie order passed in exercise vf supervisoiy jurisdicfion uncterArttele 2§7offlie Consfitutton of tndia. Aceordingty, thewl1ta ealisdistntssed. Aeting ChiefJusiice—l Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge saa :Q:;i88