( 1. ) This is an appeal filed against the order dated 15-5-2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1299/2006, and has been filed under Section 2, of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Ad-hiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam of 2005).

( 2. ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. A.P. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent, saying that under sub-section (1) of Section 2, of Adhiniyam of 2005, an appeal is available only against a judgment or order passed by learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench of this Court and this has also been clarified in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2, in which it is said that no such appeal shall be available against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 3. ) He submitted that since the present appeal is against an order passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and not passed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the same is not maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section 2 read with the proviso to the said sub-section (1) of Section 2, of Adhiniyam of 2005.

( 4. ) Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand submitted that a reading of the Writ Petition would show that it was filed not just under Article 226, but also under Article 227 of Constitution of India. He further submitted that one of the grounds taken in the Writ Petition is that 1st Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, who was trying the divorce suit No. 56-A/05, committed an error of law apparent on the face of record, in allowing the application of the respondent under Section 8 read with Section 63, of the Indian Evidence Act, for sending the tape produced by the respondent for technical examination by Experts alongwith the voice specimen of the appellant.

( 5. ) He further submitted that a reading of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge would show that the learned Single Judge has not observed in the said order as to whether he was deciding the Writ Petition under Article 226 or under Article 227 of this Constitution.

( 6. ) Mr. Mishra cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Umaji Keshao Meshram and others Vs. Radhika Bai and another [1986 (Supp) SCC 401]; Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Prasad [(1999) 6 SCC 275]; and Kanhaiyal Agrawal and others Vs. Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd. [(2001) 9 SCC 609], in which the Supreme Court has laid down the law and reiterated the law that where the learned Single Judge in his order does not state whether he has decided the writ petition under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution, and the averments in the writ petition are such that the same can also be decided under Article 226, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge can be treated as one under Article 226 of the Constitution, and an LPA against such impugned order is maintainable.

( 7. ) In Umaji Keshao Meshram and others Vs. Radhika Bai and another (supra), the Supreme Court has held that where the facts justify a party in filing an application either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, and the party chooses to file the application under both the Articles, in fairness and justice to such party and in order not to deprive him of the valuable right of appeal the Court ought to treat the application as being made under Article 226, and if in deciding the matter, in the final order the Court gives ancillary directions which may pertain to Article 227, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, where the substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 8. ) Similarly, in Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Prasad (supra), the Supreme Court has held that where in the order of the learned Sin