JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-original petitioner to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.07.2021 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 307/2021.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner had made a complaint before the police authorities alleging commission of acts, which according to the petitioner amounted to offences punishable under Section 193, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of IPC. The allegations were made against the authorities of the Document Registration Office and certain private individuals, who according to the petitioner, were involved in fraudulent creation of sale deeds concerning his immovable property. Since the police authorities did not register the complaint and start investigation, the petitioner first moved the higher authorities and thereafter filed a writ petition. In the writ petition, the prayers of the petitioner were for a direction to the respondent authorities to register F.I.R. on the basis of information supplied by the petitioner in his complaint dated 19.04.2021 and to initiate enquiry and investigation and arrest the accused persons for the alleged offences under the India Penal Code as well as Section 81 of the Registration Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment upon which this appeal has been filed.

3. At the outset, we had raised the question of maintainability of this intra-court appeal with reference to Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Rules). Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner painstakingly argued that the writ petition was filed under Article 226 and not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and invoked writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petition therefore must be seen as one invoking the civil jurisdiction of the learned Judge. In terms of Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 134 of the said Rules, intra-court appeal was therefore maintainable.

4. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellants, we do not find that this appeal can be entertained. Rule 134 of the said Rules reads as under:

“134......(i) Appeal to the High Court from Judgments of Judges of the Court:- An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the Judgment or a final order (not being a Judgment passed in the exercise of appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional Jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court.

(ii) Special Appeal - A person desiring to prefer a special appeal from the judgment of the Single Judge shall present a duly stamped memorandum of appeal within sixty days from the date of such judgment. Where such appeal is presented after the period mentioned above, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit explaining the cause of delay and it shall be rejected unless the appellant satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for non preferring the appeal within the aforesaid time.

The memorandum of appeal shall be drawn-up in accordance with Rules 125, 130 and 131 of this Chapter and shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from alongwith two extra typed copies of the judgment or order.”

5. As per sub-rule (i) of Rule 134, an appeal would lie to the High Court from the judgment or the final order of one Judge of the High Court. However, such judgment should not be passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction or in exercise of superintending powers of the High Court or revisional jurisdiction or in exercise of powers of criminal jurisdiction. Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 134 thus, while providing for an intra-court appeal, also provides in which cases such appeal would not be maintainab