GURUSHANTH PATTEDAR Vs. MAHABOOB SHAHI KULBURGA MILLS GULBARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for the consideration of this Full bench is whether an order passed by a learned Single Judge in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is appealable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961? (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and whether the Full Bench judgment of this court in M/s. Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Limited v State of Karnataka and others, answering the aforesaid question in the affirmative lays down the correct law? When this appeal came up for hearing before two of us on 17-1-2005 the Bench was of the view that the judgment of this Court in Ritz Hotels case, required reconsideration and the matter was referred to a Bench of Five Judges. This is how the case has been placed before us.

(2.) SINCE the question involved in the case is purely legal it is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. He has filed a suit for permanent injunction wherein he sought an ad interim order of injunction which was granted. In appeal filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) the said order of ad interim injunction had baen reversed and that order has been challenged by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition which is still pending. The learned Single Judge had initially granted an order of status quo which was subsequently vacated. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal filed lander Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and having gone through the judgments cited on both sides we proceed to deal with the question. Since the answer to the question depends upon the interpretation of Section 4 of the Act, it is necessary to refer to the same. It reads as under!