Judgement Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Mr. Akhilesh Kalra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Subhash Upadhayaya, Brief Holder for respondents Nos. 1 & 2. None for respondents Nos. 3 to 5. 2. Mr. Subhash Upadhayaya, the learned Brief Holder for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Special Appeal in view of the specific bar contained in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. 3. Appellant Urba Dutt has filed this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 27-07 -2007 passed in Review Application No. 887 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 378 of 2007 (MIS). 4. The appellant had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside order dated 3rd April 2007 passed by opposite party no. 1 in Misc. Civil Appeal NO.5 of 2006 as well as order passed by opposite party NO.2 dated 10-02-2006 rejecting temporary injunction application preferred in Regular Suit NO.1 of 2006 Urba Dutt Vs. Harish Belwal and others contained in Annexure no. 1 and 2 to the writ petition and opposite parties be restrained to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the plot No. C area 4427.5 Sq. Ft. situated in UPSIDC Industrial Estate, Village Peepalsana Road, Halduwa, Ram Nagar, Nainital." 5. Thus, it is apparent that the writ petition was filed against the rejection of the petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction by the Trial Court and the affirmation of the same by the lower appellate court. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 17-07-2007. The review petition, seeking review of the said order dated 17-07-2007, also stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 27-07-2007. 6. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII, providing for Special Appeals, reads as follows: "5. Special appeal. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 17-07-2007. The review petition, seeking review of the said order dated 17-07-2007, also stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 27-07-2007. 6. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII, providing for Special Appeals, reads as follows: "5. Special appeal. - An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge." 7. From a bare reading of the above-quoted Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, it becomes apparent that filing of Special Appeal is specifically barred against the judgment passed in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of a Tribunal, Court or statutory Arbitrator. 8. As the writ petition, admittedly, was filed against the rejection of the petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction by the Trial Court and its affirmation by the appellate court, the Special Appeal, in our opinion, in view of the specific bar contained in Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, is not maintainable. 9. The Special Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.