Arun Mishra, J.

( 1. ) The question has been raised with respect to maintainability of writ petitions as against the orders which have been impugned in the instant cases in view of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115CPC; whether writ would be maintainable or revision.

( 2. ) In WPNo.8714/2007 (Johra Bi and others vs. Jageshwar and others) impugned order (P/7) passed on 15th February, 2007 by the Addl.District Judge, Mandla has been assailed. Plaintiff had filed civil suit no.41-A/03 which was dismissed for want of prosecution, restoration of the suit was applied, the trial Court had dismissed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit, aggrieved thereby said misc. appeal was preferred before the Addl. District Judge which appeal has been dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition has been preferred.

( 3. ) In WPNo.8447/09 (Amir Islam vs. Paris Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Mary adit and others) matter relates to rejection of an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that valuation was not appropriate, adequate court fees has not been paid and necessary party has not been impleaded.

( 4. ) In WPNo.13378/07 (Arjundas Priyani vs. Arjundas Lalwani and another) there is rejection of an application filed on behalf of defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 GPC. Question posed for consideration is whether in case application would have been allowed, the proceeding would have been finally disposed of ? Said order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application vide Order (P.5) dated 6.8.07 has been assailed in the writ petition.

( 5. ) In WPNos.7664/07 (Shri Jagat Guru Shankrachariya Swami Swaroopanand Sdraswati Badrika Dwarika Peethhadhishwar Ashram vs. Kalam Scooter Service and others), 4993/08 (Shri Jagat Guru Shankrachariya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Badrika- Dwarika Peethhadhishwar Ashram vs.Kallu Scooter Service), 4994/08 (Shri Jagat Guru Shankrachariya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Badrika -Dwarika Peethhadhishwar Ashram vs. Siddhu Engineering Works) and in WP No.4995/ 08 (Shri Jagat Gurv Shankrachariya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Badrika- Dwarika Peethhadhishwar Ashram vs. Bhatia Tyres) the facts are that plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction of tenant on the ground of arrears of rent as also on the ground of bona fide need for carrying out the construction. Ex parte decrees were passed. Applications under Order 9 Rule 13CPC were filed in aforesaid cases. The trial Court vide order dated 23.4.07 dismissed the applications, aggrieved thereby misc. appeals were preferred before the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. The matter was remanded to the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby aforesaid writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of the petitioner before this Court. Initial!} the writ petitions were decided by common order dated 5.5.08 passed by esteemed brother Rajendra Menon, J., against which four Writ Appeals Surajmal s/o Siddhanathji vs. Sundarlal s/o Nanuram and others, 2003 2 MPLJ 408 no. 704/ 08, 705/08,706/08 and WA70J/08 were preferred . Division Bench vide order dated 28.8.2008 has observed that learned single Judge shall take up the issue relating to maintainability of the writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or in case a revision is maintainable under Section 115 of CPC. If the learned single Bench is of the opinion that the judgment in the matter of Shakuntala Singh vs. Basant Kumar Thakur and others 2003 (3) MPLJ 414 may be referred to a larger Bench in case of disagreement. It was made clear by the Division Bench that "we make it clear that we are deciding the writ appeals on the preliminary submissions and are not touching the merits of the matter which are still to be decided by the learned Single Judge while exercising his powers either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also observed that Single Judge is reque