JUDGMENT

1. Heard on preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petition was filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge seeking to invoke only supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the order of the learned Single Judge has been passed only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, writ appeal would not be maintainable.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that in the present case though the title of the petition is that it was petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the appellant could have also invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is contended, the appeal against that order would be maintainable under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhargavi Construction & Anr. v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1134