SULOCHNA MALLAIYA Vs. S N SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri V.S.Shroti, learned senior counsel for the appellant after taking us through the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya {Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal} Adhiniyam, 2005 {No.14 OF 2006} submitted that as the order under challenge has tenets of an order under Article 226, of the Constitution of India and as the directions issued by the learned Single Judge could not be issued in its contempt jurisdiction, the same have to be presumed to be the directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the appeal is maintainable.

(2.) It is also submitted by him that the proviso appended to Sub-section {1} of Section 2 would not come in his way because the nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in fact decides the rights of the parties finally and, therefore, the order would not be an interim order or an interlocutory order.

(3.) It is also submitted by him, placing reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & Others {1996 AIR Supreme Court Weekly 4272} and Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Vs. Chunilal Nanda & Others {2006} 5 Supreme Court Cases 399 that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge is deciding the rights of the parties and such an order could only be passed by the learned Single Judge in his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India then such an order can be challenged in an intra-court appeal.