Sr. No. 27 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No. 263/2024 In CM (M) No. 243/2023 CAV No. 2325/2024 S Balvinder Singh and Anr. …. Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through:- None. V/s S Harpal Singh and Ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Rakesh Chartotra, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 03.03.2025 1. This petition was taken up for consideration for the first time on 30.12.2024, when this Court after having heard Mr. Chargotra, learned counsel for the respondents had called upon the learned counsel for the appellants to address this Court on the maintainability of this LPA against an order passed by the Single Bench in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter was posted for consideration on 02.01.2025. 2. On 02.01.2025, Mr. Navneet Dubey appeared for the appellants and sought further time to enable him to address the arguments on the subject. Today, when the case was taken up, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. 3. Indisputably, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is admittedly a supervisory jurisdiction and order passed thereunder is in the exercise of power of superintendence vested in the High Court. The appeal against an order passed in the exercise of power of superintendence vested in this Court under Article 227 of Constitution is clearly barred under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Appeal is reproduced hereunder:- “12. And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of judicature from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence) of one judge of the said High Court or one judge of any Division Court and that notwithstanding anything herein before provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of “one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of” any Division Court, a consistently with the provisions of the civil procedure code, made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court where the judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgment of the judges of the said High Court or of such division court shall be to us, out Heirs or Successors and be heard by our Board of Judicial Advisers for report to us.” 4. From a plain reading of clause 12 of the Letters Patent, it is evident that no appeal lies before the Division Bench against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the exercise of power of superintendence vested in the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The legal position is otherwise well-settled and does not call for any further debate. We are sure that because of this reason, learned counsel for the appellants has not turned up to assist the Court. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge Jammu: 03.03.2025 Neha-1