JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. The judgment of August 6, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No.386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC-III, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application No.12 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No.498 of 2004 appointing a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called ‘CPC’) was assailed.

2. The question of maintainability of the LPA against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court was raised in course of hearing of the LPA. It was pointed out at the Bar that there had been two sets of directly conflicting judgments of Division Benches of this Court, inasmuch as in the case of V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Pati & Anr., 2006 (II) OLR 349, a Division Bench had taken the view that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintain¬able in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judg¬ment/order of a learned Single Judge. Similar view was also taken by another Division Bench in the case of Ramesh Ch. Das v. Ki¬shore Ch. Das & Ors., 2007 (Suppl-I) OLR 1110. But then in the case of Birat Chandra Dagara v. Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2006 (II) OLR 344, a Division Bench had held that such an appeal was maintainable. In order to resolve the aforesaid controversy this Full Bench has been constituted.

3. In course of hearing, submission was made at the Bar to resolve the controversy as to whether Writ Appeals are main¬tainable against orders passed in Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and also with regard to orders passed under Special Acts. Law being well settled that a Bench dealing with a specific reference can extend the scope of such reference, to avoid inconsistency this Bench felt it just and proper also to deal with such aspect. Consequently the case was adjourned so as to enable the Bar to address with regard to maintainability of Writ Appeals and LPAs against the orders/judg¬ments in matters arising out of Special Acts.

4. In the case of V.N.N. Panicker (supra) the question of maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC was considered by a Division Bench. The disputes arose out of C.S. No.131 of 2005 which was one for declaration and other ancillary reliefs. Along with the plaint, a petition was filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying for interim injunction. The trial Court had re¬strained the defendants by way of an ad interim injunction. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.1 had preferred FAO No.298 of 2005 before this Court. The learned Single Judge dis¬posed of the FAO partly confirming the order of the trial Court and making certain observations. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge a Letters Patent Appeal was filed.

5. It was contended before the Division Bench that not¬withstanding the provisions of Section 100-A CPC, the appeal was maintainable. In support of such submission the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sathappan (dead) by L.Rs v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 5152 as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Birat Chandra Dagara v. M.S. Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra).

6. In P.S. Sathappan case (supra) the Supreme Court held as follows :

“In this context, reference may be made to Section 100- A. The present Section 100-A was amended in 2002. It is thus to be seen that when the Legislature wanted to exclude a Letters Patent Appeal, it specifically did so. The words used in Section 100-A are not by way of abundant caution. By the Amendment Acts of 1976 and 2002, a specific exclusion is provided as the Legislature knew that in the absence of such words a Letters Patent Appeal would not be barred. The Legislature was aware that it had