JUDGMENT : B.N. Agrawal, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a Civil Revision application which was filed u/s 115 of the CPC Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). 2. In this case the Stamp Reporter has made a report that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of Rule 2(1) of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 which reads thus : "2(1) Subject to Article 12 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 every appeal to the High Court under Article 4 thereof read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exerd se of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court or one Judge of any Division Court pursuant to Article 225 of the Constitution, shall be presented to the Registrar within thirty days from the date of the judgment appealed from unless a Bench in its discretion, on good cause shown, shall grant further time. The Registrar shall endorse on the memorandum the date of presentation and after satisfying himself that the appeal is in order and is within time shall cause it to be laid before a Bench for orders at an early date. It shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment appealed from together with a neatly typed second copy thereof." On a bare perusal of the said Rule, it is clear that the appeal before the Division Bench is not maintainable if an order sought to be revised is passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Provision of the aforesaid Rule 2( 1) incorporates the provision of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court. The language of the Statute is plain and simple and it does not require any decision on the question. Provision of the aforesaid Rule 2( 1) incorporates the provision of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court. The language of the Statute is plain and simple and it does not require any decision on the question. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has cited decisions of two High Courts under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. In the case of Raghubans Lal and Others Vs. Solano and Others, the decision was rendered by a Division Bench in a Letters Patent appeal filed before it against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the Code. In that case, Courtney-Terrell, CJ. speaking for the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable observing thus : "........Letters Patent that if in fact and in law the order made was against the jurisdiction of the High Court to act in revision then the matter is open to appeal; that is to say a Single Judge who purports to exercise the jurisdiction may exercise the jurisdiction, if he acts judicially, in any way he pleases without his decision being subject to appeal but he is not the final Judge so far as the High Court is concerned as to whether he did or did not possess any jurisdiction to pass the order. To this the answer has, I think, rightly been made, that a decision purporting to be in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, whether the assumption of jurisdiction is justified or not and whether the order is right or not on its merits, is not subject to appeal. The Single Judge is the final authority subject to appeal only to the Privy Council, first of all, as to whether he had or had not jurisdiction; secondly, on the merits of the particular case, itself, and that view of the matter was taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Byomkes Seth v. Bhut Nath Pal; AIR 1921 Cal 217 and has not since been doubted by any High Court........" 4. In the case of Gulzari Lal Vs. Sheo Charan Lal and Others, the decision was also rendered by a Division Bench in a Letters Patent appeal filed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge in a Civil Revision application filed u/s 115 of the Code. In the case of Gulzari Lal Vs. Sheo Charan Lal and Others, the decision was also rendered by a Division Bench in a Letters Patent appeal filed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge in a Civil Revision application filed u/s 115 of the Code. In the said decision, Sulaiman, CJ, speaking for the Court laid down that no appeal lies from an order passed by the Judge u/s 115 of the Code, and accordingly the appeal filed before the Allahabad High Court was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable. 5. The learned counsel has also relied on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Resham Singh Pyara Singh Vs. Abdul Sattar. This case was taken to the apex Court from a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court by which that Court on the ground of maintainability rejected the Letters Patent appeal filed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court in an appeal preferred under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code. Objection was raised before the Bombay High Court that the Letters Patent appeal was not maintainable as further appeal against the order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal filed under Order 43. Rule I (r) of the Code was not provided because of the bar created under Sub-section (2) of Section 104, which clearly laid down that no further appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal preferred under that section. As appeals are preferred under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 104 of the Code which lays down that appeal shall lie against any order made under the Rules from which appeal is expressly provided by the Rules which would obviously mean Rules framed under the Code. Order 43, Rule 1 is undoubtedly a rule framed under the Code. Now the question arises, what is the meaning of expression "Rules" under the aforesaid provisions. Section 121 of the Code lays down that the Rules in the First Schedule shall have effect, as if enacted in the body of the Code until annulled or altered in accordance with the provisions of Part X of the Code which would obviously mean Sections. 129 and 130 of the Code which confer power upon the High Court to make Rules. 129 and 130 of the Code which confer power upon the High Court to make Rules. Order 43, Rule 1 is one of the Rules under the First Schedule. Therefore, further appeal was barred u/s 104 of the Code. In that case, the apex- Court laid down the law which runs thus : "It would, therefore, be clear that when an appeal was filed against the order of the City Civil Court, Bombay to the learned Single Judge under Order 43, Rule l(r) as provided in Sub-section (1) of Section 104 by operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 104, no further appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section......." 6. In the case of Vanita K. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai and Ors., reported in AIR 1998 SC 424 appeal was preferred before the Bombay High Court against decision by a learned Single Judge of that Court rendered in an Original Proceeding u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, whereby original suit filed in the High Court u/s 6 of the Act was decreed. When the matter was taken in Letters Patent before the Division Bench the same was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable because Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act created a bar to the effect that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under Sub-section (I) of Section 6 of the Act. Against the said judgment of the Bombay High Court, when the matter was taken before the apex Court. it was canvassed that Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of the bar created by Section 6(3) of the Act. The Court repelled the submission on the ground that as the order was passed by learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction decreeing the suit filed u/s 6(1) of the Specific Relief Act, appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Their Lordships laid down the law that as the power of appeal was flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions. the said power would not get excluded unless statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under Letters Patent. Their Lordships laid down the law that as the power of appeal was flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions. the said power would not get excluded unless statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under Letters Patent. The Court observed thus : ".......Even the power flowing from the paramount charter under which the High Court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. No such bar is discernible from Section 6(3) of the Act. It could not be seriously contended by learned counsel for the respondents that if Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is invoked then the order would be appealable. Consequently, in our view, on the clear language of Clause 1 5 of the Letters Patent which is applicable to Bombay High Court, the said appeal was maintainable as the Order under appeal was passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court exercising original jurisdiction of the Court......." Section 110-A of the Code expressly debars Letters Patent appeal against judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. From the aforesaid, it becomes clear that even if otherwise the appeal is maintainable under the paramount charter, but a statute can bar such an appeal just like Section 110A of the Code. From the aforesaid decision of the apex Court, it becomes clear that when further appeal is barred by any statute, then no Letters Patent appeal shall lie, unless otherwise provided under the charter, against the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of a High Court to a Division Bench. 7. In the case in hand, the position stands on much higher footing, as in the charter itself, Clause 10 debars specifically a Letters Patent appeal before a Division Bench against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction which would obviously mean civil Revision. In view of the aforesaid decisions and the statutory provision referred to above, we have no option but to holdd that the present appeal is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. In the circumstances we direct that there shall be no order as to cost. P.K. Mohanty, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed