.....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.....i.s. tiwana, j.1. district judge, gurdaspur has suggested the dissolution of marriage between the parties and the matter is before us for confirmation in terms of s. 17 of the indian divorce acct, 1869 (for short, the act). the petitioner wife has accused the respondent husband of adultery coupled with desertion without any reasonable excuse. the respondent was proceeded against ex parte as he did not put in appearance in spite of service. the district judge, in the light of the statements of the petitioner and her brother, victor john, has found the above noted grounds established as a fact.2. before us too the respondent has not put in appearance. it is thus plain that he does not challenge or contest the accusation levelled or the evidence led against him. having gone through the statements of the petitioner and her brother, we find no facts and circumstances available on record to be lie the stand of the petitioner. it is clearly established by the evidence, that since the end of 1974, not only the petitioner was turned out of the house after chastising her but the respondent is also living in adultery with another woman whose name, as per the statement of the petitioner, was later found to be moryam.3. though the district judge has failed to draw up a formal decree of divorce yet we have thought it proper not to send the case back to him for the fulfilment of this procedural requirement as he has suggested in no uncertain terms that the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce. while affirming this conclusion of the district judge we grant the petitioner a decree of divorce as prayed for but with no order as to costs.4. order accordingly.