( 1 ) THE only question for decision by us is whether an appeal under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent is tenable against an interlocutory order passed in an election petition by a single Judge which amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of that expression used in Cl. 10. This question has to be answered on the assumption that the right of appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent subsists notwithstanding the enactment of M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam (29 of 1981) abolishing the right of such appeals since this enactment has been held to be constitutionally invalid by a Full Bench of this Court in Balkrishna Dass v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. AIR 1985 Madh Pra 42. In case it is held that such an appeal is tenable, the appeal has to be heard and decided on merits by a Division Bench which will also decide whether the impugned interlocutory order passed in the election petition amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of that expression used in Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent. On the other hand, if the conclusion reached by us is that no such appeal is tenable under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent against an interlocutory order passed