The main legal point established in the judgment is that letters patent appeal would not be maintainable against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227.

1. This letters patent appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters patent is directed against the order dated 04.07.2014 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court upholding the order dated 11.05.2013 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu. The aforesaid order was challenged by invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 103 and 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. It is further appropriate to notice that the learned Additional District Judge was hearing an appeal against interim order dated 31.12.2010 passed by Munsiff, Akhnoor in a suit for declaration-cum-permanent prohibitory injunction. In accordance with the interim order the parties were asked to maintain status quo, which was set aside by the learned 1st Additional District Judge. That order has been further upheld by the learned Single Judge.

2. Mr. Vijay Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the appeal under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is not maintainable as it emerges from an order of a Single Judge passed under supervisory jurisdiction. He further submitted that in any case intra Court appeals under Clause XII of the Letters Patent are now barred by virtue of the amendment made in the Code of Civil Procedure by adding Section 100-A.

3. In order to decide the aforesaid issue it would not be necessary to notice the facts. In any case facts in detail have been noticed by the learned Single Judge and no repetition would be necessary particularly in view of the legal issue raised before us.

4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, has placed reliance on a judgment of the Full Bench of Gujrat High Court rendered in the case of Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation v. Firoze M. Mogal and another, AIR 2014 Gujarat 33. According to Mr. Gupta, the Full Bench has taken into consideration a large number of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and has rightly reached the conclusions, which are summed up in para 258 of the judgment. Learned counsel has maintained that the aforesaid conclusions reached by the Full Bench of Gujrat High Court do not leave any manner of doubt that the present letters patent appeal would not be maintainable.

5. Mr. O.P.Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted that when petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction then an original order is passed by issuing a writ of certiorari directing the subordinate Courts to function within their bounds. In that regard learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, AIR 2003 SC 3044. On the basis of the aforesaid analogy Mr. Thakur has argued that the basic function of exercising supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 is to correct errors of jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, if the Courts below have exceeded jurisdiction or refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or there is grave illegality committed then the High Court may issue an appropriate writ. Applying the aforesaid principles, Mr. Thakur has argued that the refusal to exercise jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge has resulted in passing of an order on original side, which would be amenable to letter patent appeal. Mr. Thakur has also placed reliance on two other judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of M/s M.M.T.C. Limited v. Commission of Commercial Tax, AIR 2009 SC 1349 and M/s Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad, AIR 1999 SC 2423, wherein it has been held that if a Single Judge has exercised jurisdiction under Article 226, a letters patent appeal would be maintainable. If jurisdiction is exercised under Article 227, such an appeal would not be maintainable. However, it has been submitted that if the Single Judge of High Court w