RAMASHANKAR Vs. ISHWARI PRASAD THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of this writ appeal on two grounds, firstly, that under the proviso to Sec. 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act of 2006'), no appeal lies to the Division Bench where the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and secondly, on the ground that even if this Act was not there under the general law, no appeal lies to the Division Bench against a judgment or order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) As far as the Act of 2006 is concerned, Sec. 2 reads as follows: -

(3.) The proviso to Sec. 2 of the Act of 2006 makes it crystal clear that no appeal lies against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further more, this has been a consistent view of the Apex Court and all other Courts even with regard to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction even under the letters patent where such letters patent are available and in those High Courts, the scope of the word "judgment" is very wide.