Mana Vs. Dalel

.....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. - it..........petitioner in this revision petition filed a suit against the respondent dalel for possession of some agricultural land. when the suit reached the concluding stage, an application was filed by the defendant-respondent under section 10 read with section 151, code of civil procedure, with a prayer that the proceedings in the suit may be stayed and the reason given for this was that in an earlier suit in regard to the same property between the same parties, a declaratory decree had been passed in favour of the petitioner by the trial court which decree was affirmed by the first appellate court. the respondent had, however, preferred a regular second appeal no. 19 of 1977--dalel v. mana which was admitted by this court on jan. 13, 1977 and was pending disposal, the contention was that the point in issue in the present case largely depended upon the result of the regular second appeal which is pending in this court and hence the proceedings in the suit should be stayed. the matter was considered by the trial court and by means of the impugned order dated jan. 24, 1978, the prayer made in the application was allowed and the proceedings in the suit were stayed pending disposal of the regular second appeal mentioned above. it is this order of the trial court which is impugned in the revision petition.2. mr. s. s. rathor, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the relief for possession which is prayed for by the petitioner in the latter suit is on a different cause of action and even the relief prayed is for possession whereas the decree in the earlier suit was for a declaration. it is submitted that in such a situation the provisions of s. 10 of the code could not be invoked. i am unable to agree with this contention. the property in dispute is the same in both the suits and so are the parties. it cannot be disputed that the result of the regular second appeal would determine as to whether the petitioner is really entitled to the relief of possession.....