B.PRASAD, J. - (1.) These two appeals are filed under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). With the repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, Section 18 also stands repealed. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vasna Ram, reported in 2002 (2) WLC (Raj) 383, has taken note of this fact thus: "This appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). That Ordinance provided inter-Court appeal against the judgment and order of the single Judge passed in writ petitions and also against the Judgments in first appeal by the single Judge. The said Ordinance stood repealed by the Judicial Administration Laws (Repeal) Act, 2001 (Act No. 22 of 2001) which received the assent of Honble the President of India on 29-8-2001 and has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part,II dated 29-8-2001."
(2.) The effect of this repeal has been discussed in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in this judgment. After a detailed discussion and consideration of various decisions of the Apex Court, the Division Bench came to the conclusion thus : "Thus, in view of the above, it can be summarized that appeal is a creation of the statute, and conferring a particular jurisdiction upon the Court falls exclusively within, the domain of the Legislature. Therefore, in absence of any provision in the Act/Rules/ Ordinance/Notification, providing for an appeal, the appeal cannot be held to be maintainable. If the Legislature, in its wisdom, has withdrawn the provision providing for an appeal, the Court lacks competence to create the forum. The Ordinance, Section 18 of which provided for an appeal, stands repealed and the repealing Act does not contain any saving clause, and Shri Jangid could not point out any provision analogous to Section 18 of the Ordinance, existing in any Statute in force. In such a fact-situation, the appeal cannot be entertained."
(3.) Thus, the purport of the judgment quoted hereinabove shows that power to maintain an appeal under Sec. 18 of the Ordinance stands excluded.;