JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner State of U.P. and two others seek to set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court and Court of appeal in O.S. No. 213 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2010 respectively whereby present petitioners have been saddled with the liability to pay an amount of Rs. 15,841.18 paise to the opposite party alongwith interest @ 18 per cent.

3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that since valuation of money recovery suit is less than Rs. 25000/- therefore, second appeal is barred in such matters under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and hence this petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Advocate appearing for the respondents that since second appeal under Section 102 is barred in the matters of valuation of the original money recovery suit being less than 25,000/- under Section 102 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to circumvent such a bar, would equally not be maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh v. Haqimuddin decided on 27.11.2008 and reported in 2008(10) ADJ 182.

5. Meeting aforesaid preliminary objection, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are the inherent powers of superintendence of the High Court upon the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it through out territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and this power cannot be curtailed or limited by any Act of legislature. He submits that power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court is one of the basic features of our Constitution, and therefore, either by any Act of legislature or any amendment to the constitution, this power cannot be taken away. He submits that second appeal is though barred under Section 102 of the CPC but a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution at the same time would be maintainable. He has placed reliance upon a number of the authorities of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

6. In view of the above rival submissions regarding maintainability of this petition, before I proceed to consider the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution on its merit, I consider it appropriate to deal with preliminary objection raised by learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents first in the light of various authorities on this issue.

7. In case of Mahendra Singh (supra) a coordinate bench of this Court in its judgment running in one and half page, in the third paragraph of it has quoted Section 102 which bars second appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the Court of appeal where valuation of suit for recovery of money is not exceeding Rs. 25,000/- and considering this bar the Court observed that holding a petition under Article 227 in such cases to be maintainable would frustrate the very purpose for which Section 102 has been incorporated under Code of Civil Procedure. vide paragraph 5, the ratio as laid down in the said judgment for holding petition not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution, it has been held thus:

''Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellate requests for return of the certified copies of the judgments and orders of the Courts below and the decree appealed against to enable him to file a writ petition challenging the said judgments and orders. There is no difficulty in accepting the above request of the counsel simplicitor but a writ petition under Article 227 against the judgments and orders of the Courts below would not be maintainable as it would amount to frustrating the very purpose of the amendment made under Section 102 Civil Procedure Code. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is