Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—This intra court appeal has been preferred as against the order dated 7.8.2006 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5071/2006 by Single Bench in the matter of interlocutory order dated 18/5/2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 179/2005 allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC moved by the respondent No.1 for impleading as party to the suit.

2. The learned Single Judge has declined to make interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the interlocutory order passed by the trial court.

3. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the intra court appeal cannot be said to be maintainable as it arises out of an interim order passed by the civil court in a pending civil suit. The writ petition is maintainable against such a decision as no revision lies. The scope of revision has been curtailed by the legislature under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose to avoid the challenge to interlocutory orders before conclusion of the trial, however, against such a decision, writ petition can be preferred in exceptional circumstances invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court where failure of justice is caused or order is patently illegal. In such a matter, this Court essentially exercises its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and label of the petition is not material.

4. In Sukh Dev, supra, Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, providing the special appeal, has been considered and on due consideration of various decisions of the Apex Court, decision has been rendered by division bench that intra court appeal against such a decision is not maintainable. The division bench of this Court in Sukh Dev, supra, has opined thus:

“22. In another case delivered in the case of Kishorilal vs. Sales Officer, District Land Development Bank and others ((2006) 7 SCC 496), observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been relied upon which are in para 13, which reads as under:-

“13. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our opinion, committed an error in interfering with the findings of fact arrived at by the Board of Revenue. The Division Bench of the High Court also wrongly dismissed the LPA without noticing that an appeal would be maintainable if the writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as was held by this Court in Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar vs. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha 1993 Supp(1) SCC 11).

24. After considering the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the judgment of the Umaji Keshao Meshram (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others ((2003) 6 SCC 675) held that the nature and ambit of power under Article 227 is wider than one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that power of superintendence is not subject to technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. It has been held that it is well settled that the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paying the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai's made clear the distinction between the jurisdiction under writ of certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of High Court and did not appreciate obliteration of distinction between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed “Probably, this is the reason why it has become customary with the lawyers labelling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such pra