( 1 ) JAI Prakash Agarwal, respondent No. 4 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33181 of 1998 has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23rd October. 1998, passed by the single Judge by which he stayed the operation of the order dated 29. 9. 1998, passed by the prescribed authority, respondent No. 1. At the time of admission/hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection on 29th October. 1998 against the maintainability of the appeal. It was submitted that as prescribed authority by his order decided the dispute of election as a tribunal between the parties, which was subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition, from orders passed in such a writ petition, special appeal under Chapter VIII. Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, is not legally maintainable. Considering the preliminary objection, we gave time to the learned counsel for the parties and fixed 30th October. 1998 for hearing on this preliminary objection.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri. R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for appellant and Sri A. C. Tirpath, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

( 3 ) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that Ghanshyam Dass Sigatia Arya Trust. Deoria. Is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860 and its registration number is 402 of 1946-47. A dispute was raised on 28. 12. 97 before the Assistant Registrar. Firms. Societies and Chits, U. P. . Gorakhpur in connection with the functioning of Trust on which a notice was issued to the opposite parties. After hearing parties. Assistant Registrar, respondent No. 2 referred the dispute to the prescribed authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration act. 1860, (hereinafter referred to as act), for deciding the doubt/dispute about the legality of the election of the Committees of Management on 16. 8. 1994 and 2. 6. 1996. The reference was made by order dated 10th June. 1996. On basis of this reference, the Prescribed Authority gave opportunity to the parties to file their pleadings and evidence and after hearing passed order on 29. 9. 98 by which he found the election of the Committee of Management and the office bearers in the election held on 2. 6. 96, valid. This order of the prescribed authority was challenged in civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33181 of 1998. In which the learned single Judge passed the order dated 23rd October, 1998. Impugned in this appeal.

( 4 ) RULE 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court, 1952 contains provision for special appeal from order passed by a learned single Judge. Rule 5 reads as under : "an appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of Superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction (or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the constitution in respect of any judgment order or award fa] of a tribunal court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one judge ). "

( 5 ) RULE 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of Court, mentioned above, is in fact reproduction of clause 10 of the Letters Patent and not a new provision. The learned single Judge hearing a writ petition under Article 226 exercises original Jurisdiction. His order deciding the writ pet