(1) This is an appeal against an order passed by Jalal-ud-din J. Sitting singly exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

(2) Mr. Raina appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable. In support of his objection, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that no appeal under the Letters patent lies from an order made under the revisional jurisdiction exercised by a Single Judge of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or from an order made by him in exercise of his supervisory jurisdiction under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir In our opinion the contention raised by Mr. Raina is well founded.

(3) A perusal of Section, 104 clearly shown that the power of superintendence and control over the subordinate courts conferred on the High Court is merely in the nature of a supervisory jurisdiction. This Section corresponds to Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in a Full Bench decision of this court reported in AIR 1967 J&K, 99. It has been consistently held in a number of cases that the jurisdiction conferred by this provision is not an original jurisdiction.

(4) In Hudi Goshaon V. Sudi Goshaon and others, AIR 1962 Punjab, 467, it was observed

"Article 227, which is for all practical purposes a revival or Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, is not an Article which in terms provides for writs etc, in this respect it is distinguishable from Article 226 of the constitution which alone provides for writs etc.

(5) Proceedings under Article 227 are not original proceedings for orders passed in, these proceedings are not even amenable, to Letters Patent appeals, as has been held by this Court in more cases, than one."

(6) In Sukhendu Bikash Barua Vs Hare, Krishan De and others, AIR 1953 Calcutta, 636, it was held:-

The relevant expression in Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent excludes a judgment pronounced by a single Judge in exercise of the powers of revision or in exercise of the powers of superintendence under Art 227 of the Constitution.

(7) Again in re V. Tirupuliswamy Naidu, AIR 1955 Madras, 287, it was held: -

Whether the jurisdiction that was invoked fell under civil PC section 115 or Constitution Art. 227, it was revisional jurisdiction and no appeal lay under the Letters Patent against the order of the Single Judge. The jurisdiction under Constitution Art. 227 is revisional jurisdiction within the meaning of Letters Patent "Cl. 15."

(8) A perusal of the Letters Patent of this court would also show that no appeal is contemplated against an order of the present nature which is passed by a Single Judge. C. 12 of the Letters Patent runs thus:-

"And we do further ordian 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 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 not withstanding anything hereinbefore 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, consistently with the provisions of civil P. C., 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 from other judgments of the judges of the said High Court or such Division Court shall be to us. Our Heirs or successors and be heard by our Board of Judicial Advisers for report to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document