Hon'ble TATIA, J.-The issue involved in these appeals is whether intra-court appeal lies against the order passed of the nature in writ jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge of this Court?

2. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.32/2010, the writ petition was labelled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11796/2009. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after taking note of the fact that by impugned order of the trial court dated 12.10.2009, the trial court directed defendant-petitioner' for discovery of documents under Order 11 Rule 14, CPC as according to the plaintiff, those documents were in possession of the defendant. This rejection of the writ petition of the writ petitioner is under challenge in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.32/2010. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner prayed that the impugned order of the trial court 12.10.2009 may be set aside and the application of the plaintiff-respondent under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC may be rejected.

3. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.10/2010 is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2009 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1034/2009. In this case, the petitioner challenged the order of the trial court dated 19.1.2009 whereby the trial court rejected the defendant-petitioner's application tiled under Order 16 Rule 1(3), CPC for summoning two witnesses during the course of defendant's evidence. In the writ petition, the petitioner not only prayed for quashing the order of the trial court dated 19.1.2009 but also prayed that the writ petitioner's application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) CPC may be allowed and the witnesses referred in the application may be summoned. The writ petition was labelled as under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.12/2010 has been preferred to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.714/09. The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners challenging the order of the trial court dated 13.1.2009 whereby the trial court rejected the petitioner's application under Order 8 Rule 9, CPC and refused to take on record the rejoinder filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to the written statement. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought relief of setting aside the order dated 13.1.2009 as well as for allowing the application of the writ petition filed under Order 8 Rule 9, CPC in the trial court so as to get the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff on record. The writ petition was labelled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.844/2009 has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9232/09 wherein the appellant-petitioner challenged the order of the trial court dated 7.8.2009 whereby the trial court rejected the writ petitioner's application filed under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC, which was filed for production of some documents by the defendant. The writ petitioner, in the writ petition, prayed for quashing the order dated 7.8.2009 by specifically mentioning that the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari, be issued and the order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the trial court may be set aside and further the documents may be taken on record. The writ petition has been labelled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. From the above facts, it is clear that all the writ petitioners labelled their writ petitions not only under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioners in their Writ Petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1034/2009, 714/2009, 9232/2009, prayed for not only quashing of the orders of the trial courts but prayed further for allowing the applications whi