BY GOPALA GOWDA, J:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 227 - Orders passed under - Whether appeal would lie there against under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act in respect of interlocutor}' orders passed in the Original Suit proceedings by the Civil Courts - HELD, As the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 CPC is taken away by amending the same and in the light of the powers conferred under Sections 9(xii)(a) and (b) and Section 10(iva) of the Act, I am of the opinion that right of appeal is available to a litigant against the orders passed by the single judge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the writ petitions filed against the judgments, awards and orders/interlocutory orders of Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, quasi Judicial Tribunals/Authorities, Family Courts and Civil Courts in their respective proceedings and the said power is expressly conferred and the same is restricted to the orders, judgments etc., passed under original jurisdiction only. FURTHER HELD, The restraints of Article 227 of Constitution of India as amended under 42nd Constitutional amendment has been deleted by the 44th Constitutional amendment and the original power of this Court under Article 227 was restored. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at in Gurushanth Pattedar's case by this Court that order passed under Article 227 in the writ petition is not appealable, is against the spirit of 44th Amendment of the Constitution. The amendment to Section 115 CPC is not governed by the Constitutional powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 and exercise of such powers are regulated by the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act of 1961 and writ petition proceeding Rules. - It is to be borne in mind that litigants invoking writ jurisdiction constitute one class and they should be given same or similar treatment by this Court while exercising its judicial review powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. If one set of writ petitioners are given the right of appeal and another set is denied, it amounts to discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such different procedure to the litigants is totally impermissible in law. - If, appeals are to be entertained only against the orders, judgments etc. Passed in exercise of original jurisdiction only as interpreted in the five Judge judgment in the case of Gurushanth Pattedar, it amounts to taking away the powers conferred upon two judges of this Court under Sections 4 read with 10(iva) of the Act and denying the statutory right of Appeal conferred upon the public litigant, which is impermissible in law. Therefore, the points referred to this Bench for consideration have to be answered in favour of the writ appellants/petitioners.