By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to “as the Rules”) is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 28.10.2014 wherein learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to “as the CPC”) has been pleased to direct transfer of Original Suit No. 956 of 2010 filed by Dr. Ajay Chaturvedi, the appellant before this Court, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar to the competent Court at Moradabad.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the present special appeal. The issue so raised revolves around the interpretation of the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules. It would be appropriate to reproduce the Rules which read as follows:

5. Special Appeal.—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 powers 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 (a) 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]”

From a simple reading of the Rules, it is apparent that all the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court are appealable before a division Bench of the Court except for the category of the judgments which stands excluded from the purview of such special appeal. The Rule in fact excludes judgments against which Special Appeal will not be maintainable. Therefore, what is to be seen is as to whether the judgment/order made in exercise of the powers under Section 24 of the CPC stands within there excluded from the provisions of the Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules or not?

3. A division Bench of this Court in the case of Vajra Yojna Seed Farm Kalyanpur (M/s) and others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II and another, 2003 (1) UPLBEC 490, has laid down that ordinarily, following categories of the judgments/orders stand excluded from the purview of the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules which reads as under:

“(i) Judgment of one Judge 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.

(ii) Judgment of one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

(iii) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of its power of superintendence.

(iv) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

(v) Judgment or order of one Judge made in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award 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 of any of the matters enumerated in State List or Concurrent List.

(vi) Judgment or order of one Judge made in exercise or jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award by the Court or any officer or authorit