ORDER Manjunath, J. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No. 5021/2005 on the file of the Learned XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents - defendants, their agents, servants from , interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property from demolishing any structures or dispossessing him from the suit property and to restrain the defendants from taking up constructional activities on the suit land by the 2nd defendant with the aid of the 1st defendant. 2. The suit property is measuring 2 acres 8 guntas in S.No.14/16 situated at Tavarekere village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that the suit was not maintainable since the property was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority had been allotted to the 2nd defendant. Since the 1st defendant had taken possession and delivered possession to the 2nd defendant, the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession, exclusive and peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that 2nd defendant without any manner of right, title or interest is trying to demolish the existing structures in the suit schedule property and thus caused interference? 3. Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice as contemplated under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and also barred by principles of res judicata? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have a relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed? 5. To what order and decree? 3. The trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidence let in by them that in view of the acquisition and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmaichand and other Vs. Gram Panchayath Karariya and others, AIR 1996 SC 253 and the State of Bihar Vs. Dheerendra Kumar and Others, AIR (1995) 4 SCC 229 held that is the suit was not maintainable and dismissed the suit. 4. Gram Panchayath Karariya and others, AIR 1996 SC 253 and the State of Bihar Vs. Dheerendra Kumar and Others, AIR (1995) 4 SCC 229 held that is the suit was not maintainable and dismissed the suit. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree ofthe Trial Court, the appellant filed regular first appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. Considering the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appeal filed by the appellant in the light of Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short), the matter was posted before the Learned Single Judge on 12.3.2007. The Learned Single Judge posted the matter for admission on 21.3.2007. On 21.3.2007, the Learned Single Judge, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, has referred the matter to the Division Bench by passing the following order: “Sri C.B. Srinivasan, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 - Housing Society submits that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of the land acquired by respondent No.1 - BDA (out of which this appeal has arisen), was not maintainable in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. K.S. Narayan (ILR 2007 Kar 1), Laxmi Chand Vs. Gram Panchayat (1996)7 SCC 218 ) & State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar (1995) 4 SCC 229 ). He further submits that the suit property measuring 2 acres 8 guntas was acquired by respondent No.1 - BDA as per Ex. D2 - the final acquisition notification dated 07.02.1978. The appellant/plaintiff relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in John B James Vs. BDA and Another (ILR 2000 Kar 4134) in support of maintainability of the suit. As the question of law raised is of some public importance, I deem it appropriate to refer this appeal to a Division Bench of this Court in exercise of the power conferred on me under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Ordered accordingly. Both parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till 9.4.2007. Registry to place this appeal before the appropriate Division Bench.” 5. In this background, the matter is listed before us. 6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for all the parties. At the outset, the order of reference of the Learned Single Judge was brought to our notice. Registry to place this appeal before the appropriate Division Bench.” 5. In this background, the matter is listed before us. 6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for all the parties. At the outset, the order of reference of the Learned Single Judge was brought to our notice. After perusal of the order of reference, what is noticed by us is that the Counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. K.S.. Narayana, ILR 2007 Kar 1, Laxmi Chand vs Gram Panchayat, (1996)7 SCC 218 , and State of Bihar Vs Dhirendra Kumar, ILR 2000 Kar 4134. It appears that the learned appellant’s Counsel has relied upon the Division Benchjudgment of this Court in the case of John B J James Vs. BDA and Another, ILR 2000 Kar 4134, wherein it has been held that the suit was maintainable. By observing the submission ofthe learned Counsel tor the parties, the learned single Judge, who was dealing with the matter, has held that the parties have raised question oflaw of some public importance and the same has to be referred to Division Bench. Accordingly, exercising his power under Section 9 of the Act, referred the matter to the Division Bench. 7. After considering the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we directed both the parties to address their argument in regard to the legality and correctness of the order of reference to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge. According to us, Section 9 of the Act can be exercise by the learned Single Judge provided a case falls within any of the Clauses mentioned therein. Section 9 of the Act reads as hereunder: “9. According to us, Section 9 of the Act can be exercise by the learned Single Judge provided a case falls within any of the Clauses mentioned therein. Section 9 of the Act reads as hereunder: “9. Other powers of a single Judge- The powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters shall be exercised by a single Judge, provided that the Judge before whom the matter is posted for hearing may adjourn it for being heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges:- (i) determining in which of several Courts having jurisdiction a suit shall be heard; (ii) admission of an appeal in fonna pauperis; (iii) exercise of original jurisdiction under any law for the time being in force; (iv) appeals under rule 1 of Order XLIII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (v) appeals in which the subject matter is as to costs only; (vi)any matter of an interlocutory character in appeals and other proceedings; (vii)admission of an appeal presented after the expiry of the period allowed by the law of limitation; (viii) exercise of powers conferred by section 389, Section 439 and Section 440 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974); (ix) exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or [under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974); (x) xxx] (xi) appeals from interlocutory orders, where such appeals are allowed by law. (xii) exercise of powers under: a) clause (1) of article 226 of the Constitution of India except where such power relates to the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus; and b) articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India]” Section 1 0 of the Act reads as follows: “10. (xii) exercise of powers under: a) clause (1) of article 226 of the Constitution of India except where such power relates to the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus; and b) articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India]” Section 1 0 of the Act reads as follows: “10. Other powers of a bench of two Judges- The powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters shall be exercised by a Bench of two Judges: (i) a reference: (a) under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (b) under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) (ii) an application under rule 2 of Order XLV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (xii) xxx (iv) exercise of powers under clause (1) of article 226 of the Constitution of India where such power relates to the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus; (iva) an appeal from any original judgment, order or decree passed by a single Judge in exercise of the powers under clause (I) of article 226, article 227 and article 228 of the Constitution of India. (v) all other matters not expressly provided for in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force. “ 8. The Learned Counsel for the appellant was directed to bring to our notice whether anyone of the Clauses under Section 9 of the Act was attracted in order to refer the matter to Division Bench by the Learned Single Judge and also whether the case in hand can be referred to a Division Bench in view of Section 5 of the Act. 9. A perusal of the order of Learned Single Judge discloses that the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench, wherein it has been held that the suit filed by the appellant was maintainable. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent has relied upon three judgments of the Supreme Court to show that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. When the law is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances of the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no High Court can refer the matter to a Division Bench to decide the question of law. When the law is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances of the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no High Court can refer the matter to a Division Bench to decide the question of law. When once an issue is decided by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on an Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Learned Single Judge in this case has only stated that the appellant’s Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2000 Kar. 4134. In the circumstances, there was no reason for the Learned Single Judge to refer the matter to the Division Bench in order to decide the question of law since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already decided the question of law raised by the parties. In the circumstances, what was open to the learned Single Judge was either to apply the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the law laid down by this Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In our view, none of the Clauses under Section 9 of the Act has attracted the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the question is whether the suit filed by the appellant was maintainable or not in view of the acquisition of the land by the Bangalore Development Authority and allotment of the same to the 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Section 9 of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances case. In addition to that the Learned Single Judge has not formulated the question of law, which requires consideration by the Division Bench. 10. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Section 9 of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances case. In addition to that the Learned Single Judge has not formulated the question of law, which requires consideration by the Division Bench. 10. At this stage, it is useful for us to refer Section 5 of the Act, which reads as follows: “5, First appeals: Save as otherwise provided in this Act: (i) all First Appeals against a decree or order passed in a suit or other proceedings, the value of subject matter (which exceeds fifteen lakhs rupees) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court and other First Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court.” Therefore, it is clear that if the subject matter of the appeal is .less than Rs. 15 lakhs, such first appeal is to be heard by the learned Single Judge. But there is no enabling provision for the learned Single Judge to refer the matter to a Division Bench under Section 5 of the Act. He would get jurisdiction to refer the matter to Division Bench “ provided the matter falls under any of the Clauses of Section 9 of the Act. We have already examined the Clauses enumerated under Section 9 of the Act. Since the present appeal does not fall in any of the Clauses therein, the order of reference is not in accordance with the provision of the Act. 11. Further Clause (v) of Section 10 states that all other matters not expressly provided for in the Act or any other law for the time being in force can be heard by a Bench of two Judges. Since it has been expressly provided in Section 5 that first appeals have to be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges when the value of subject matter exceeds Rs. 15,00,000/-, it is implied that all other first appeals have to be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court. Therefore, a first appeal the value of subject matter of which is less than Rs. 15,00,000/-, it is implied that all other first appeals have to be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court. Therefore, a first appeal the value of subject matter of which is less than Rs. 15,00,000/- has to be heard by a Single Judge unless such an appeal is falling under one of the Clauses of Section 9 of the Act in which case, the matter cannot be referred to a Bench of two Judges. 12. At this stage, it is also useful to refer Section 6 of the Act, which reads as follows: “6. Second Appeals- All Second Appeals shall be heard and disposed of by a single Judge of the High Court. Provided that, if such Judge is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in the case, or that in the interest of justice, the case is to be heard and disposed of by a Bench of Judges, he may refer the Second Appeal for hearing and disposal to such Bench.” 13. A judge dealing with Second Appeal under Section 6 of the , Act may refer the matter to Division Bench if he is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in the case or in the interest of justice. But such a discretion is not given to a learned Single Judge, who deals with a regular first appeal under Section 5 of the Act. In the circumstances, we have no option but to send the reference back to the learned Single Judge requesting him to hear and decide the appeal I on merits and in accordance with law. 14. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that this Court may request he learned Single Judge to post the matter for dismission since the order of reference was made at the stage of admission. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is for the Registry to post the matter before the learned Single Judge considering the stage of the case. 15. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, we are of the opinion that a rightly pointed out by Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Learned Senior Counsel, that it is for the Registry and not for us to post the first appeal at an appropriate stage for disposal by the learned Single Judge. 15. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, we are of the opinion that a rightly pointed out by Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Learned Senior Counsel, that it is for the Registry and not for us to post the first appeal at an appropriate stage for disposal by the learned Single Judge. It is for the office to post the matter considering the order sheet of the case. If the matter has not yet been admitted, naturally it has to be posted for admission. If the matter is admitted, it has to be posted for hearing. 16. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Learned Single Judge may be requested to dispose of the I.A. or to modify the interim order. It may not be proper for a Division Bench to request the Learned Single Judge to dispose off the I.A. and the parties are always be at liberty to move the appropriate Bench. In view of the above, office is directed to post the matter before the appropriate Bench.