IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.307 of 2011 SMT. LEENA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF LATE HARISH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT AT CIVIL LINE BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR TOWN, DISTRICT-BUXAR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY INSPECTRESS OF SCHOOL, BUXAR. ……………………….PETITIONER…………..APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BUXAR. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NALANDA. 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, HILSA, NALANDA. 7. THE DEPUTY INSPECTRESS OF SCHOOL, BUXAR. …………………RESPONDENTS……….RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 19.5.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The order impugned before the Writ Court was an order passed in an execution proceeding, whereby the warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor was recalled on his application that the decree had been complied with. The law is well settled that under the Civil Procedure Code, ordinarily, the remedy for an aggrieved party 2 is to prefer appeal or revision but in exceptional circumstances even where no revision would lie, power of superintendence of this Court can be invoked by preferring writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Letters Patent Appeal is governed by Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of this Court and that specifies that no intra court appeal would lie against the exercise of power of superintendence. In that view of the matter, the law is settled by so many judgments and orders that such Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. This appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. It goes without saying that the appellant can avail further remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. P.S. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)