Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
The Apex Court dismissed the SLP after considering the foct that the judgment of the learned Single Judge hearing writ petition against the Board of Revenue we. not in original jurisdiction, hence, writ appeal is not maintainable. So far as this Court is cone med, the view taken by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 9186/2007 is a binding precedent as th ole question before the Supreme Court in the said SLP wa about the maintainability of the appeal after coming into force of Adhiniyam of 2005 and earlier t.he Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with such n situation Hence, so far as this Court is concerned, said view has attained finality and cannot be reopened in view of the afore aid decision of the Apex Court, Therefore. judgment in SLP No. 9186/2007 is a binding precedent which i to be followed by thi High Court unlesi the view taken by the Apex Court in the said SLP is overruled. Mano) Kumar u. Board of Revenue, 2008(1) M.P.L.J. 152 c: 2007(4) MPHT 545 .. 2007(ffi) MPJR 328 (FB). (b) [As decided in trengtb of three Judge Full Bench) -The p?eaclingin the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the learned smgle Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given, the jurisdictional pro pective in the constitutional context a.re to be perceived, It cannot be said in a hyper technical manner that an order pas ed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order (C) No.9186/07. Said SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court by holding that no appeal lies before the Division Bench if a writ petition JS filed before the High Court against the order of Board of Revenue as the order is not an original order. (d) Proviso of .2(1) -Maintainability of bar againat an Inter- locutory order [As decided in strength of three Judge Full Bench],-.·The proviso stipulates that no appeal would lie against. an interlocutory order. But an eloquent and pregnant one, when an interlocutory order ha the semblanc of final order or affect the rights of the parties, it can be treated es an order for all practical purposes. The said exception cannot be treated in absolute terms to nullify the enactment. Therefore, the order has to be a final order by way of final disposal. It cannot be regarded es the correct interpretation of the proviso in entirely, for a writ. Court can issue direc- tions or pass orders in its inherent jurisdiction which can assume the colour r" f!l.ality and, at an interim stage, can vitally affect the rights of the parties or destroy the rights or create a situation by which the relega- :01. wo the oriainal stage would become impossible. Conclu ions in seraanm: (i) The PM\ 1&0 to Section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayu]aya (Khand NyayPeeth Ko Appeal) Adhin.iynm, 2005 does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal to the Division Bench. (ii) An appeal can be preferred against an order regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect andimpnctofthe order passed by the learned single Judge. (iii) It should be borne in mind that. instances given in referred several decisions in thi case are not exhaustive but illustrative in nature, becau e various kinds/categories of orders may be passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Con- stitution of India. (iv) The facts in each case, the nature and the character of the order are to be crutinised to appreciate the trappings of the same. Arvind Kumar Jain u. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2007 M.P. 276 = 2007(3) MPLJ 566 = 2007{3) MPHT 376 = 2007(3) JLJ 187 = 2007(3) 'MP.JR 4 (FB).