ORDER

1. Heard on I.A. No.6000 of 2022 which is an application for maintainability of this writ appeal filed by the respondents M.P.P.K.V.V.C.L.

2. Shri Prasanna Prasad, counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that this appeal has been preferred against two orders, one passed in Writ Petition No.20703 of 2018 on 13.2.2019, whereas the other order is passed in Review Petition No.516 of 2019 dated 29.4.2019. It is submitted that the provisions of section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, and the rules made thereunder do not provides one appeal against two separate orders. In support of his contention Shri Prasad has also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others v. Pankaj Chaudhary in W.A. No.77 of 2014 dated 13.4.2015. He has also relied upon decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput reported as (1994) 2 SCC 753 and Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and others reported as (2004) 13 SCC 675. Shri Prasad has also referred to the provisions of Order 47 rule 7 of CPC, which provides that an order of the Court rejecting an application for review is not appealable.

3. The aforesaid application is opposed by Shri Vinay Zelawat, Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and it is submitted that the appeal is maintainable as the writ Court passed the order on 13.2.2019, whereas the review petition was filed after a delay of after 24 days, which has also been condoned by the writ Court, however, the review petition has been dismissed on 29.4.2019, whereas the present appeal has been preferred on 25.7.2019, after a delay of 70 days. Shri Zelawat has also relied upon a subsequent decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank v. Nek Ram Singh reported as AIR Online 2018 MP 637.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the record, it is found that so far as the provisions of Adhiniyam is concerned, section 2 provides that an appeal shall lie from a judgement or order passed by one Judge of the High Court. So far as Order 47 rule 7 of CPC is concerned, the same reads as under :--

“7. Order of rejection not appealable. Objections to order granting application. (1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.

(2) Where the application has been rejected in consequence of the failure of the applicant to appear, he may apply for an order to have the rejected application restored to the file, and, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when such application was called on for hearing, the Court shall order it to be restored to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for hearing the same.

(3) No order shall be made under sub-rule (2) unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.”

6. So far as the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj Chaudhary (supra), is concerned, the same reads as under :--

“Heard on IA No.1368/14, an application for condonation of delay.

The State has preferred the present writ appeal against the order dated 7.5.2004 passed in WP (S) No.901/2004 whereby the increment was directed to be released in favour of the respondent from the date of his initial appointment.

The learned counsel for the State has submitted that no opportunity was given to file return and the matter was disposed off on the date of first hearing. He has placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble the apex Court in the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh Bhati & other” [(2008)