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: 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. con­tra)].-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 jurisdictionalprospective 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 orSubordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India It would depend upon the real 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 of th Apex Court. The pleadings, as hos be n indicated herei.nabove, also (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, 2005 UIC)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 (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 Inter­locutory 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 direc­tions 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 (KhandNyayPeeth 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 the learned 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 is having semblance of final order and have affected the rights of the appel­lant. 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 Art 227 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.-Ap­pellants 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 thinka 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 <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 <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