Nakula Nayak Vs. Debaraj Nayak

.....original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. orderopposite party has entered appearance. therefore, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission on consent of the parties.heard.1. order dated 18.08.2007 in election misc. case no. 18 of 2007 of the learned civil judge (junior division), khurda, is under challenge. the writ petitioner as opposite party in that election dispute prayed to issue summons to b.d.o. to be examined as examine witness from his side. that application was rejected on the ground that the election officer-cum-b.d.o. is a public servant and without calling for document, securing his attendance for deposing in the case is not proper. such is not the position of the law under the g.p. act, c.p.c. or evidence act, therefore, the said order is set aside and the court below is directed to allow the application of the writ petitioner and to permit him to examine the said officer as witness on behalf of opposite party. however, if the opposite party fails to secure the attendance of the witness on proper issue of notice, then that may not be a ground for deferring hearing of the case.2. the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.