^T HEGH COURT OF CHHATT5SGARH AT BILASPUR DiViSIONBENCH CORASVE : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ. HON'BLE SHRJ D.R. DESHMUKH, J. APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS WritApoeal No.61 oS!2007 1. Bindra Prasad, S/o Dhinnu!ai, Aged about 66 years, R/o Near Railvvay Station, Chirmiri District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Om Prakash, S/o Mahangulal, Aged about 39 years, R/o Haidibadi; P.S. - Chirmiri, Teh. - Manendragarh, District — Korba; Chhattisgarh Versus 1. Haridas, S/o Dhinnula! Aged about 71 years. 2. Raj Kumar, S/o Haridas, aged about 43 years, 3. Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o Haridas Gupta, Aged about 41 years. Respondents No.1 to 3 above al! R/o Haldibadi, P.S. Chirmiri, Teh.- Manendragarh; District ~ Korba, Chhattisgarh 4; Indian Oi! Corporation Limited, Through its General Manager; M.P. StateOffioe, 16, Arera Hiiis, Jail Road, Bhopai, Madhya Pradesh. 5. Sr. Divisional Manager, Retail Saies; Indian Os! Corpn. Ltd. Indian 01! Bui'idlng, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, V.I.P. road, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarn 6. Shlv Prasad, S/o Mahangulai, Aged about 36 years, R/o HaidibadJ, P.S. - Chirmiri, Teh. ~ Manendragarh, Distriot - Korba, Chhattisgarh Wrst Appeal under Section 2(1lQfChhattisaarhiiiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act 2006. Present: Shri Sanjay K Agrawai, counse! for the appe!!ants. Shri Prateek Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon1st May, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.LDattu,GJ.: ^ The appe!!ants before us in this appeal were the defendants in Civil Sult No.ll-A/05. Respondents were the plaintiffs in the said sult Thers was some delay in fiiing the written statement by the defendants. Therefore, the pialntiffs fiied an application before the trial Court requesting the Coart to reject the written statement fiied by the appeilants. That request ofthe piaintjffs is accepted by the triai Court. Aggrieved by the order so made, the defendants were before thls Court in writ petltion No.5372/06. Learned Single Judge by his order dated 07.11.2006 has rejected the writ petition. That is how the appellants are before us in this appeai. (2) Shri Prateek Sharma, learned counsei appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 by v'/ay of prelimina^ objection would submlt that the appeai flled by the appellants agalnst the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not maintainabie before this Court. !n aid of hls submission, iearned counse! brings to our notice Section 2 ofthe Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. (3) Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, iearned counsei appearing for the appeliants would submit that the petition flied before the learned Singie Judge was under Anicies 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India and therefore, the appea! fi!ed by the defendants before this Court is maintainabie. (4) in number of cases parties before this Court would be filing writ petltions both under Articies 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Sndia. Merety beoause it is stated that the petition is filed under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of india, it can not take the characters of a petition filed under Articies 226 of the Constitution of India. Subject rnatter of the petltion requires to be taken note of by the Court. Admlttediy, the request of the plaintlffs before fhe Court had been accepted by the triai Judge and thereby had rejected the request of the defendants to fiie writteR-statement i? for any reason, the said order is questioned before this Court, it could only be under Articie 227 of the Constitution and by no stretch of imaglnation it couid be under Article 226 ofthe Constitutlon. 3 (5) Sectson 2 of the Act reads as under: . 2.AppeaI 4o the Dsvision Bench of the court from a Jydgment or order of one judge of the High Covrt made io exerdse of original jurisdiction - (1) An appea! shail lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of originai jurisdlction under Article 226 of the CGnstJtution of !ndia, to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges ofthe same High Court : Provided that no such appea! shai! lie against an interiocutor/ order or against an order passed In exeroise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (2) An appea! under sub-seotion (1) snal! be fiied within 45 days frorn the date of order passed by a Single Judge: Provsded that any appeai may be admitted after the prescribed period of 45 days, /Jf the petitioner satisfies the Divlsion Bench that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeai within such period. - The fact that the petitioner was misied by any order, practice or judgment ofthe High Court in ascertaining or computlng the prescribed period may by sufficjent cause within the meaning ofthss sub-section. (6) Statute has barred fiiing of any appeal before the Division Bench of this Court if the petition filed by the petitioner is under Articie 227 of the Constitution of !ndla. Since the v^rit petition that was filed before this Court-was under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of Indsa, in our opinion, In view ofSection 2 ofthe Act, the appeai fiied by the appeliants Is not maintainab!e before us. Accordingly, the appea! requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingiy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge