(1.) THE judgment of August 6, 2008 passed by a learned Single judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, ftc-III, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application no. 12 of 2005 arising out of C. S. No. 498 of 2004 appointing a receiver under O. 40, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter called 'cpc') was assailed.
(2.) THE question of maintainability of the lpa against the judgment of a single Judge of this Court was raised in course of hearing of the LPA. It was pointed out at the Bar that there had been two sets of directly conflicting judgments of Division Benches of this court, inasmuch as in the case of V. N. N. Panicker v. Narayan Pati, 2006 (2) OLR 349, a Division Bench had taken the view that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of S. 100-A, CPC against the judgment/order of a learned single Judge. Similar view was also taken by another Division Bench in the case of ramesh Ch. Das v. Kishore Ch. Das, 2007 (Supp 1) OLR 1110 : (AIR 2007 Ori 146 ). But then in the case of Birat Chandra Dagara v. Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. , 2006 (2) OLR 344, a Division Bench had held that such an appeal was maintainable. In order to resolve the aforesaid controversy this Full Bench has been constituted.
(3.) IN course of hearing, a submission was made at the Bar to resolve the controversy as to whether writ appeals are maintainable against orders passed in writ petitions filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and also with regard to orders passed under Special Acts. Law being well settled that a Bench dealing with a specific reference can extend the scope of such reference, to avoid inconsistency this Bench felt it just and proper also to deal with such aspect. Consequently the case was adjourned so as, to enable the Bar to address with regard to maintainability of writ appeals and LPAs against the orders/judgments. in matters arising out of Special Acts,