BS1 . i^^/o? HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGAKH. BILASPUR WritAoDeal(P.RlNo.4827of2007 DB: Hoa'ble SItfi Jaedlsh BIiaUa»Aa.C^J. Slu'iSunUkumar SiaIia.«Judt Aopellant Ramsevak, s/o Mangal, r/o vfflage Tenduiaiuida Tahsil Pendra Road, Distt, Bilaspur (C,G), fhroi^h QeneFal Power of Attoraey Shri Donelal, s/o Ramsevak, r/o Tendumuda Tahsil PehdraRoad, DistrictBilaspur(C.G) Versus RESPONDENT8 1. Chain Smgh, s/o Daya Singfa, caste Gond, r/o ViUage Rajhapara (Korba), Tahsil Peudi-a Road, District, Bilaspur(C.G) | 2. State of C.G. fhrough CoUector, Bilaspur (C.G) 3. Revenue Board of C.G., Bilaspi.lr WmT^AI>BlE^M»uyS^llWTHBmcm (XW OF ,cmii&Tl'i^esKalixSSiQSiiSiEl'wSilitSgESx^^ SUB C!IJkS& I^^ IC.^ m<^©igiB^'3RI»LES.2005 Appeacaitce: No one appears for fhe appeUaatwhen the matter is caUed out.: . _, ;: . ; ! ; ^ ; . : ' ShriU.N.S.Deo, Govt. Advocate for fh.e State/reSpondents no.2 & 3 on advauce oopy. ORALORDER " (13.8.2007) Jaedisli Bhalla. Ae.C.J., This writ appeal arises out, of an order passed in Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia. Before coming into force of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act, 2006^, iatra court appeals were beiiag filed i.uider the provisions oftfae Madhya Pradesh Ucficha Nya.yalaya (Letters Pcctent Appea.Is °'^.: ' ..-."•::.: •• • • • • . '• ' • \ Sampati) Adhiruyam, 2982, Thesaid provision bfLetters Patent Appeal was repealed by fhe Act, 200& and by the same notification, ClLbattiSgarh H%h Coua-t Rules, 2005 Gaae into force wherein fhe provision of ^)peal is provided UDder Rute 2 .wfaichisasfbUows: ! 46 "2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court fi'om. ajudgiueiit'or order of one Judge of the H]®hGoyrt inade in exercise of origuial jiutedictkm. (1) An appeal shatt lie fi?oiu a judgment or order passed by one judge of fhe High Court ia exercise of origmal jurisdictioa •under Ardcle 226 of fhe Constitution of IncUa, to a Division Bench. coniprisingoftwoJudgesofthe same high Court: Provided that no such appeal shall He agaiust aa niterlocutory order or ^aiast an order passed iaexercise of supemsoiy jurisdictiDn iiader Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. (2) Aaappealundersub-section(l)shaIIbe fited wifhia 45 days fi'oni fhe date oforder passed by a Suigle Judge. Provided fhat auy appeal luay be adiuitted after the prescribed period of 45 days, if flie petittouer satisfies the Division Bench that he had sufi&cient cause for not prefemDgtIie appeal withia sucli period. ExplanatKm:- The fect that fhe peti.ti'oii.erwas misted by aay prder, piactice or judgmeat of the H^h Couit ia ascertainiag the prescribed period inay by sufBcient cause vnftun the lueaniD^ of this sub-section." Froin fhe perusal of fhe aforesaid provision, it is ciystal clear fhat no appeal shall Ue agaiast aa order passed in exeicise of supervisoiy jurisdiction under Article 227 offhe Constitution of India. Same view has been laken by a Divisjon Bench of this Court iu W.A(P.R.) No.3486/2007, in which one of us (HonTale Shri Jagdish BhaUa, Acting CIuefJustiee) is aMeinber. In Ught of the above dlscussion, iatra court appeal is not inaintamable agaiast the order,passed ia exercise of supeivisory jurisdiction ttuder Ardcle 227 ofthe Coustifutioa of India. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disinissed. ^ Acting ChiefJustice Sd/- SuniiKumarSinha Sao