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. Tauri