Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.:

In view of the urgency pleaded by Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants, we take up this matter out of turn.

2. This is an appeal against an order dated September 2013 passed by Dipankar Datta, J. in W.P. 21858 (W) of 2013.

3. In the order impugned, the Hon’ble Single Judge held that His Lordship had no determination in the matter as the said writ petition should have been moved before the Court taking up Group IX cases. Thus, His Lordship released the matter from His Lordship’s list and directed listing of the matter before the appropriate bench having determination.

4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the appeal, invites us to hold that this is an order directing return of the petition and, therefore, this is appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order 43, rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee cites the decision in Shah Babulal Khimji versus Jayaben D. Kania and another reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1786.

5. Chief Justice Sir Richard Couch, speaking for the Bench, in The Justice of the Peace for the