R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) ON being prima facie satisfied that the law laid down in management of Kalpana Theatre, Bangalore v B. S. Ravishankar and Another, had ignored various provisions of the Karnataka high Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') a division Bench of this Court referred this matter to this Bench for authoritative pronouncement.

( 2 ) IN Kalpana Theatre's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court had held that no appeal was maintainable against the judgment or order passed by a Single Judge in petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that such appeal was maintainable only if the judgment or order was passed in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that while deciding Kalpana Theatre's case, supra, the Division Bench had not taken note of the amended provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act and Rules 2 and 26 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'), read with the forms appended to the rules. It is contended that the amendmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document