The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 09.09.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5068 of 2012 in and by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant rejecting the prayer of the appellants to quash the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by Sub Judge-IX, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 212 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the Sub-Judge IX, Ranchi rejected the compromise petition filed by the parties and proceeded to decide the dispute between the parties through regular trial on the merit of the case.

2. The facts of the case, leading to filing of this Letters Patent Appeal, in brief, are as under:-

3. A Partition Suit No. 212 of 2006 (Annexure-2) was filed in the Court of Sub Judge-IX, Ranchi by plaintiffs [namely, respondent no. 1, 2 and one Most. Pramila Devi (not party here)] against defendants, [namely, respondent nos. 3,4,5,6,7,8&9 and husband of appellant no.1and father of appellant nos. 2 to 4]. The said Partition Suit is still pending. During the pendency of the said Partition Suit a joint petition of compromise was filed in the above Suit on 24.03.2009 (Annexure-3) and it is stated by the appellants that the said compromise petition has been duly signed by defendant no. 2 (husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellant nos. 2 to 4), respondent nos.1,3,4,5,6&9 and plaintiff no.2 (not party here). Thereafter, a withdrawal application was filed by the 3rd defendant (respondent no. 9 herein) on 10.12.2009 seeking withdrawal of the compromise petition. On 23.3.2010 (Annexure 7), an application was filed by respondent nos. 3 to 8 before the Court below praying therein that the compromise petition be given effect to, except few. Thereafter, the father of the appellant nos. 2 to 4, filed a petition on 2.3.2012 (Annexure 8) before the Court below praying therein to decree the suit in terms of the compromise dated 24.3.2009, which was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 14.08.2012.

4. The appellants being aggrieved by order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Court below in Partition Suit No. 212 of 2006 filed W.P.(C) No. 5068 of 2012 to set aside the order passed by the Court below on 14.8.2012. Vide order dated 9.09.2013, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the plaintiff no. 3, defendant nos. 1 (d) and 1(e) have denied having put their signature in the compromise petition and in such circumstances, the compromise petition filed in the suit cannot be accepted. On this finding, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, which is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.

5. When the matter came up for admission, we directed the learned counsel for the appellants to advance argument on the question of maintainability of the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though the writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 5068 of 2012 was filed to quash the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by Sub-Judge IX, Ranchi rejecting the compromise petition, the writ petition was filed by the appellants is to be treated as a writ petition filed under both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Pointing out that the writ petition has to be treated as writ petition filed under Article 226 and as against the order passed in the writ petition intra Court appeal is maintainable, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the number of judgments, which are as under:-

1. AIR 2006 Jhr. 19 (FB) {Swapan Kumar Bandopadhyay and etc. Vs. SAIL & Ors.}

2. 2013 Lawsuit (J&K) 251 {Sudershana Gupta and Ors Vs. Girdhari Lal}

3. AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1999 {State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal}

4. AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2850 {Ashok Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs. Garden Silk Mills & Anr.)

5. AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3645 {Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & Ors. Vs. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.}

6. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2423 (1) {M/s Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankarprasad}

7. AIR 1992 Supreme Court 185 (1) {Sushil