KPP -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1691 2011 Sunil Chintaman Ketkar ... Appellant vs. Chandrabhan M. Tibrewala and others ..Respondents Mr. S.G. Gokhale for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED , JJ. DATE: JUNE 09, 2011. P.C. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated March 21, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2011. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has rejected the petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned trial Judge in a pending suit by which the amendment application preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff is rejected. 2. It is not in dispute that the writ petition was filed against an order of the Civil Court in a pending civil suit. In our view, while deciding a matter of such a nature, the learned single Judge has exercised his supervisory jurisdiction against an order of subordinate Court as the learned single Judge has power of KPP -2- superintendence as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Such order, in our view, cannot be subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal as Letters Patent Appeal cannot be entertained against such an order. It is true, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Advani Oerlikon Ltd. vs. Machindra Govind Makasare and others1 held that mentioning of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution itself would not be a guiding factor. It is ultimately which power the learned single Judge has exercised is the guiding factor for consideration as to whether Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable or not. 3. So far as subordinate Courts are concerned, High Court is having superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In a civil suit, if any order is passed, the learned single judge is exercising his supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and the same is, therefore, not subjected to further appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has frankly submitted that previously against such an order, revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code was maintainable but in view of amendment in Civil Procedure Code, now revision is not maintainable and, therefore, writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is required to be noted that when the High Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it shall have powers 1 2011 (3) Bom. C.R. 12 KPP -3- to issue any person or authority including in appropriate cases any Government, directions, orders or writs. So far as the order of the Civil Court is concerned, it cannot be said that the High Court is exercising such extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while deciding the writ petition filed against the order of the subordinate Court and the High Court is merely exercising its superintending powers over the subordinate Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Considering the said fact, in our view, this letters patent appeal is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.