Honble MATHUR, J.–This special appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 11.4.2002 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C.

(2). The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiffs suit was decreed against the appellant Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. for possession of an industrial plot measuring 2000 Sq. ft. at the cost of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. with development charges. The appellant preferred a regular first appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 3.2.1995 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court. The appeal was admitted and the operation of the decree was stayed. After notice the appeal was to be heard in due course. For the preparation of the Paper Book the counsel for the appellant was required to deposit initial charges and to submit list of documents. As there was default, the case was listed before the Court on 24.10.2000. The Court passed a peremptory order, as follows :-

``Notice under Rule 181 of the Rajasthan Court Rules was exhibited way back on 28.6.99. Despite taking opportunity, list of documents as well as initial charges have not been filed as yet as per office report dated 20.10.2k. Four weeks time is granted to do the needful, failing which the appeal will stand automatically dismissed without reference to the Court.

The compliance of the order was made on 21.11.2000 to the extent of depositing initial charges. The list of documents was submitted on 23.11.2000. Thus, according to the appellant there was two days delay in filing the documents so as to comply with the pre-emptory order. In view of the pre-emptory order the first appeal stood dismissed. The appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. for re-admission of the appeal dismissed for default. This application has been rejected by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.4.2002, which reads as follows :-

``According to office report the defects have been removed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

On perusal of the application, I do not find any sufficient ground to have been made out for restoration of the appeal dismissed for non compliance of the peremptory order.

The restoration application is, therefore, dismissed.

(3). At the outset Mr. Vikas Balia learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the instant appeal being against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction the special appeal under Section 18 is not maintainable. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Sohan Lal vs. Laxmilal (1).

(4). In order to appreciate the contention it will be convenient to read Section 18 of the High Court Ordinance as follows :-

``18. Appeal to the High Court from judgment of Judges of the Court,-

(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the judgment (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 under Section 43 or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the High Court.

Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the High Court made 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 where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document