Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has filed an appeal before a division bench of Delhi High Court against a single-judge's order dismissing his plea challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to freeze the Shiv Sena party name and bow and arrow symbol [Uddhav Thackeray v Election Commission of India & Anr]. .The Uddhav Thackrey and Eknath Shinde factions have both laid claim to the party name of Shiv Sena and its symbol.However, the ECI had passed an interim order on October 8 restraining both camps from using the 'Shiv Sena' party name and the symbol until it decides which among the two rival factions is entitled to use them..Single-judge Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed Thackeray's petition last month holding that there was no interdiction by the Supreme Court regarding the proceedings to be conducted by the ECI. The judge had, however, said that it would be in the interest of parties as well as the general public if the ECI decided the proceedings related to allotment of symbol and party name as expeditiously as possible. .In his appeal, Thackeray has said that the single-judge failed to appreciate that the EC's order is "patently illegal, without jurisdiction and unsustainable, both in law and on facts". It has been stated that in passing the order of freezing, the commission has proceeded on the assumption that there are two factions of Shiv Sena party.The plea argues that it cannot be said that there are two factions in the party as Thackeray continues to be "rightfully elected President", a fact admitted even by Eknath Shinde. "The observation of the Ld. Single Judge that both the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 claim to be the President of the original Shivsena party is factually incorrect, as the Respondent No. 2 in para 3 of his para 15 petition filed before Respondent No. 1 himself states that the Appellant herein is, and continues to be the Shivsena Pramukh (President/Pramukh) of the Shivsena Political Party," the appeal states. .Thackeray has further said that the ECI has exercised its jurisdiction without taking note of the disqualification proceedings pending before the apex court against Shinde and other MLAs of his camp. "...single-judge failed to appreciate that the question of disqualification of Respondent No. 2 (Shinde) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the action of Respondent No 1 (ECI) is premised on an underlying assumption that the Hon’ble Supreme Court will decide in favour of Respondent No. 2." .The plea has been filed through advocates Vivek Singh, Devyani Gupta and Tanvi Anand. Advocates Chirag Shah, Utsav Trivedi, Himanshu Sachdeva and Manini Roy of M/S Tas Law have filed the caveat in the matter.