WA 233/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Madan B. Lokur, C. J. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order date d 16th August, 2007. 2. The respondent had filed CRP No.186/2007 under Section 115 of th e CPC. The Civil Revision Petition was filed against an order dated 9th April, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jorhat in Misc. (J) Case No.4/2007 in Title Execution No.1/2007. 3. The civil revision was unfortunately drafted as a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the app ellant has now clarified that what was filed was actually a civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC and because of the drafting a wrong impression was given to the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Single Judge was of the view that whether it is a pe tition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or a civil revision petiti on under the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC, it would have come up for hea ring before him in any case. Therefore, the learned Single Judge treated the pe tition as one under Article 227 of the Constitution and decided the matter. It is under these circumstances that the appellant is before us. 5. The admitted position is that a writ appeal does not lie against an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution. This is the view expres sed by a Division Bench of this Court in Nirmala Debnath & Anr -Vs- New India As surance Company Ltd. & Ors. [2006 (3) GLT 660] as well as the authoritative pron ouncement of the Supreme Court in Ashok K. Jha & Ors. -Vs- Garden Silk Mills Ltd . & Ors. [(2009) 10 SCC 584] (paragraph 36 of the cited decision). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent makes it abundantly clear tha t the petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC and not under Article 227 o f the Constitution. Therefore, no writ appeal is maintainable against the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. The order of the learned Single Judge has also dealt with FAO No .13/2007 (in a common judgment). The FAO was admittedly an appeal filed under t he provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC. This first appeal was directed aga inst an order dated 9th April, 2007 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.102/2007 in Titl e Suit No.1/2007. 8. It is nobody’s case that a writ appeal is maintainable against a n order passed in a first appeal against an order. 9. We, therefore, do not entertain this writ appeal but leave it to the appellant to take such action as may be permissible in law. 10. The writ appeal alongwith the Misc. Case stands disposed of with liberty to take such action as may be permissible in law.