JUDGMENT 1. - Core question that falls for consideration in the instant matters is - whether Intra court Appeal lies to the Division Bench against the judgment/order of Single Judge rendered in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 2. Since impugned judgments under these two appeals have been passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the Single Bench of this court, they are taken together for disposal. Brief resume of the facts is that interim order dated February 19, 2004 of Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur was assailed before the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petition No.1691/2004. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated March 24, 2004 set aside the order of Tribunal and allowed the writ petition. Against this order of learned Single Appeal No. 253/2004 has been preferred by the appellant Sher Singh Meena. Whereas the order dated April 29, 2003 of Civil Judge (Junior Division) South, Kota rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was affirmed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 4471/2003 vide order dated August 7, 2003. This order has been called in question by appellant Vinay Kashyap in Appeal No. 1027/2003. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that impugned decisions have been rendered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 both, therefore, appeals are maintainable. Reliance is placed on Ratnagiri District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve and others, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 9 , Sushila Bai Laxminarayan Mudiliyar and others v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha and others, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 11 and Punjab National Bank v. Purewell and Associates Ltd., 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 67 . Per contra learned counsel for the respondents urged that the writ petitions were virtually revision petitions and came to be decided in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 therefore instant appeals are not maintainable. 4. We have pondered over the submissions. 5. A bare look at the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution demonstrates that these two articles stand on an entirely different footing. While under Article 226 the High Court has power to issue directions, order and writs to any person or authority including any government. Article 227 confers upon power of superintendence to High Court over all courts and tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. While under Article 226 the High Court has power to issue directions, order and writs to any person or authority including any government. Article 227 confers upon power of superintendence to High Court over all courts and tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The power under Article 227 is supervisory jurisdiction intended to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within the limits of their authority and according to law. The orders, directions and writs under Article 226 are not intended for this purpose and the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Courts by Article 227 is in addition to the power provided by Article 226. The powers conferred by Articles 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. These two processes are not the same. Their source and origin are different. 6. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Umaj Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 401 , indicate that the proceeding under Article 227 is not an original proceeding. Whereas proceeding under Article 226 is an original proceeding when it concerns civil rights, it is an original civil proceeding.It was therefore observed that, "The appeal filed against the order of the Single Judge to the Division Bench was rightly dismissed as being not maintainable because under clause 15 of the Letters Patent an intra - court appeal against the decision of the Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 is barred." 7. In Ahmedbad Manufacturing & Calico Co. v. Ram Tahel Ramanand (1972) 1 SCC 898 , their Lordships of Supreme Court held that power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 is virtually a revisional jurisdiction. It was observed thus:- (Para 11) "Article 227 of the Constitution no doubt does not confer on the High Court power similar to that of an ordinary court of appeal. The material part of this article substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act; 1915 except that the power of superintendence has been extended by this article to tribunals as well. Section 107 according to preponderance of judicial opinion clothed the High Court with a power of judicial superintendence apart from and independently of the provisions of the other laws conferring on them revisional jurisdiction." 8. Section 107 according to preponderance of judicial opinion clothed the High Court with a power of judicial superintendence apart from and independently of the provisions of the other laws conferring on them revisional jurisdiction." 8. Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215 , indicated that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. 9. In regard to maintainability of intra - court appeal, the Division Bench of this Court in Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (2) WLC (Raj.) 36 , laid down the conditions thus : "Two conditions are required to be fulfilled, to show that an intra - court Appeal is maintainable. These are (1) that the facts of the case should justify that a party could file petition both under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and in fact and substance the party files petition both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; (2) That substantial part of the order appealed against should be under Article 226 of the Constitution. If these conditions are not satisfied and yet the party mentions Article 226 of the Constitution, that itself would not confer upon it the right of appeal." 10. In Ratangiri District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve and others (supra), it was held that if relief is granted by Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and not Article 227 intra court appeal is maintainable. 11. Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar and others v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha and others (supra), was the case - where Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that where facts justify filing of petition either under Article 226 or under Article 227 but it is filed under both the articles, Court should treat the petition as being made under Article 226 so as not to deprive the party of the right of appeal to Division Bench. 12. Full Bench of this court in The State of Rajasthan & anr. v. V.R.C. Misra & Ors., 2003 (2) WLC (Raj.) 235 , indicated that repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 does not effect any change to the right of appeal, as existed prior to August 29, 2001, is not at all affected. 12. Full Bench of this court in The State of Rajasthan & anr. v. V.R.C. Misra & Ors., 2003 (2) WLC (Raj.) 235 , indicated that repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 does not effect any change to the right of appeal, as existed prior to August 29, 2001, is not at all affected. The source of jurisdiction exercisable by it original, appellate including the jurisdiction of the Division Courts to hear the intra court appeal and other jurisdiction become exercisable by the High Court of Rajasthan by virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution and it was the same as it was exercising immediately prior to the commencement of the Constitution. Article 225 of the Constitution became the primary source of exercise of various jurisdiction by the High Court and other matters enumerated in Article 225. Repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 by the Act, 2001 had no effect whatsoever on the exercise by the Division Bench jurisdiction in the matters of hearing in appeal against the judgment of Single Judge. 13. In Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and others, (1997) 5 SCC 76 , it was held as under : "The power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only but such power includes within its sweep the power of judicial review. The power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is essentially to ensure that the courts and tribunals, inferior to High Court, have done what they were required to do. The High Court can interfere under Article 227 in case of erroneous assumption of acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material, or resulting in manifest injustice." 14. Bench of Hon'ble three Judges of Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodha v. National Insurance Co. Bench of Hon'ble three Judges of Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodha v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 , propounded in para 7 thus:- "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. 15. Considering the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, AIR 2003 SC 3044 , observed as under : "Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice, or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction." 16. Principles deduced from the aforequoted decisions may be summed up thus : (i) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is a revisional jurisdiction. (ii) The powers conferred by Articles 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields the power under Article 227 intended to ensure that subordinate Courts and Tribunals act within the limits of their authority and according to law whereas the orders, directions and writs under Article 226 are not intended for this purpose. Power under Article 227 is in addition to the power under Article 226. Power under Article 227 is in addition to the power under Article 226. (iii) In order to maintain antra Court,appeal, two conditions are required to be fulfilled (a) In fact and substance the writ petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 both; (b) Substantial part of the order appealed against should be under Article 226. 17. In Punjab National Bank v. Purewell and Associates, 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 67 , the facts were considered in para 28 as under : "In the present matter both the petitions are filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The relief sought for in the writ petitions is to call for the record of the Tribunal as well as the Bank concerning the settlement and/or compromise referred in the writ petition; to quash the order dated 15.12.1998 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur on the application of the petitioner under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code and to direct the Bank to accept the settlement and further to direct the respondent Bank not to prosecute the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur. The learned Single Judge has said that both the writ petitions have been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Further, specific quarry has been made by the learned Single Judge as to whether the powers can be exercised and matter can be decided finally under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the Single Bench. Learned Single Judge while passing the order has considered the matter on merits as is clear from the portion of the judgment referred in para 6 by us, whereas judgment delivered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur is not on merits. The application for compromise was dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground that the compromise has not been entered into between the parties in accordance with the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the Circular No. 3 of 97, the document dated 14 September, 1993 and thereafter while considering the case on merits, reached to the conclusion that the document dated 14th September, 1998 is a document whereunder the Bank and Company have entered into a compromise and that there was a settlement between Bank and the Company for the amount of Rs. 4.75 crore and there is nothing left to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge issued directions to the Tribunal to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Bode i.e. to record the compromise and to pass a decree in terms thereof as alleged by the respondent Company. The matter was not remanded back by the learned Single Judge for adjudication of the question by the Tribunal on merits whether on facts and under law any compromise has been arrived at and, if so, for what amount and as to what relief the respondent company shall be entitled to. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the material produced on record itself, has arrived at the findings that the compromise for the amount of Rs. 4.75 crore has been arrived at. The only part left with the Tribunal is to pass a decree of the said amount. Thus, in our view it is obvious that the power has been exercised by the learned Single Judge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India while deciding the matter." (Emphasis supplied) In view of these facts it was held thus:- (para 28) "In all eventualities, if we hold that the order of the Single Judge is in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India then, on our interpretation of Provision 18 of Ordinance of 1949, intra-court appeal lies in the High Court, if we hold that the order passed by the Single Judge is in exercise of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India then also intra-court appeal lies and, if it is a case of order being passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, appeal under Ordinance 18 of the Ordinance of 1949 is maintainable." 18. The observation of Division Bench in Punjab National Bank's case (supra) that intra-court appeal lies even if the order is passed by the Single Judge under Article 227, was obiter dicta since it was an observation on a legal question suggested by a case before the Division Bench but not arising in such manner as to require decision. The observation of Division Bench in Punjab National Bank's case (supra) that intra-court appeal lies even if the order is passed by the Single Judge under Article 227, was obiter dicta since it was an observation on a legal question suggested by a case before the Division Bench but not arising in such manner as to require decision. It is not binding as precedent, because the observation was unnecessary for the decision pronounced by the Division Bench (vide Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 85 and ADM Jabalpur v. Shukla Shivakant (1976) 2 SCC 521 ). 19. In the ultimate analysis we hold that no intra-court appeal lies to the Division Bench against the judgment/order of the Single Judge rendered in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 20. Since in the instant appeals the judgments of the Single Bench passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, have been assailed, these intra-court appeals are not maintainable. 21. For these reasons, the appeals stand dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******