JUDGMENT

M. M. DAS, J. — This writ appeal has been filed under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent against an order dated 1.7.2005 of the learned Single Judge passed in O.J.C. No.17341 of 2001.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed Title Suit No.164 of 1979 against the appellant to set aside a sale deed, which was executed and registered by one Ganjendra Acharya in favour of the appellant with respect to the ‘A’ Schedule property of the plaint for a consideration of Rs.2000/-. The grounds taken in the plaint were that the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud and coercing the vendor. The appellant’s case was that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 realizing that the suit would be dismissed got a compromise petition filed in the suit, which according to the appellant was obtained by the respondent No.1 by playing fraud on the appellant. However, on the Court causing an enquiry under Order 23, Rule 3 of the C.P.C., held that the compromise was lawful and the same was made a part of the decree. The said decree was challenged by the appellant in Title Appeal No.21 of 1982, which was being dis¬missed, Second Appeal No.109 of 1984 was preferred by the appel¬lant before this Court. The said Second Appeal was also dis¬missed. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 levied execution of the decree in Execution Case No.2 of 1991. During the pendency of the said execution case, the appellant filed a misc. case under Section 47 of the C.P.C. being Misc. Case No.52 of 1992 challeng¬ing the executability of the decree. During pendency of the said misc. case, the appellant filed an application to amend the said misc. case filed under Section 47 of the C.P.C. The prayer for amendment being rejected, the appellant filed a Civil Revision against the said order of rejection of the application for amend¬ment. The said Civil Revision was also dismissed and the appel¬lant challenging the said order of dismissal passed in the Civil Revision filed O.J.C. No.17341 of 2001. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 1.7.2005 after analyzing the facts of the case in detail dismissed the writ application holding that it is devoid of merits. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal for appropriate relief.

3. At the outset, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the writ appeal against the order dated 1.7.2005 of the learned Single Judge is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chunta Nayak and fifty others -v- State of Orissa, represented by Collector, Kendrapara and five others, 2002 (1) OLR 139. Mr. Mukharjee, learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, contended that the ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the facts of the said case are distinguishable from that of the present case.

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties and keeping in view the fact that this is a Letters Patent Appeal, Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is quoted hereun¬der:

“An appeal shall lie........from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in exercise of the appellate jurisdic¬tion by a Court subject to the superintendence of High Court...... and not being an order made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.....) of one Judge of the said High Court .... and in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in 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......”

Interpreting the above clause 10 in case of M/s. New Kenil¬worth Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Orissa State Finance Corporation and others, AIR 1997 SC 978, the Supreme Court in paragraph-7 of the judgment held as follows :

“It would, thus, be seen that Clause 10 of the Le