JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge while granting time to the parties to exchange affidavits, has stayed the operation of the suspension order dated 21.1.2010. 2. We have heard Sri P.S. Baghel, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Smt. Seema Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and also perused the judgment and order dated 30.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed alongwith the appeal. 3. Sri Baghel, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application to the present appeal and submitted that as respondent No. 4 had preferred statutory appeal, which fact was not disclosed in the writ petition, he is not entitled for any discretion of this Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being guilty of concealment of fact and the order dated 30.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. 4. On a query being made by the Court on the question as to whether in the appeal filed against the ex-parte interim order documents which were not on record before the learned Single Judge can be taken into consideration or not, Sri Baghel submitted that in an intra Court appeal the appellant can file additional evidence and the principles laid down in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable, even though in strict sense, C.P.C. has not been made applicable in writ proceedings. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Briksha Maurya v. Murlidhar Mishra and others, (1999) 1 UPLBEC 706 ; and also upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and others, (1996) 3 SCC 52 . 5. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Briksha Maurya v. Murlidhar Mishra and others, (1999) 1 UPLBEC 706 ; and also upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and others, (1996) 3 SCC 52 . 5. Smt. Seema Agarwal learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, on the other hand, submitted that the present appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order and, therefore, is not maintainable. She relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamal Kumari Singh v. State of U.P., 2006 (10) ADJ 399 . 6. Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable as the President has not been authorized by the Board to file appeal and, therefore, it may be thrown out on this ground alone. He further submitted that the present appellant is the President of Nagar Palika Parishad and he cannot be said to be person aggrieved. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the parties. We are of the considered opinion that it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the President of Nagar Palika Parishad can be said to be a person aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2010 or not, or the appeal is not maintainable as it has been filed against an interlocutory order as the present appeal itself is liable to be dismissed on the ground that whatever material has been placed in the appeal can very well be placed before the Hon’ble Single Judge as the scope of intra Court appeal is limited to see the correctness of the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge on the basis of material or evidence which is before him and not on the basis of material or evidence which are filed alongwith the appeal by way of additional evidence. 8. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others (supra), a Letters Patent Appeal as permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an intra Court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others (supra), a Letters Patent Appeal as permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an intra Court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the power of a Court of Error. Therefore, we can in exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is being exercised in an intra Court appeal correct errors in the order of the learned Single Judge on the basis of material which was on record before the learned Single Judge and not on such documents or material which have not been placed before him, more so when the intra Court appeal is against an ex-parte interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. It is true that in an intra Court appeal additional evidence can be filed. In the case of Ram Briksha Maurya (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that though the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to writ proceedings, the provisions contained in Rule 27 of Order XLI of Civil Procedure Code may be considered as general principle for admission of additional evidence in writ appeal. However, this remedy is not available in all situations. It may be available where the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition after which he becomes functus officio except having the powers of review and, therefore, in such an eventuality the only remedy available to the aggrieved person is to bring on record the documents by way of additional evidence after satisfying the requirements provided under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in a case where an intra Court Appeal has been filed against an exparte interim order, the appellant shall have an opportunity to file the documents which were not before the learned Single Judge and which he wants to rely upon alongwith an affidavit in the pending proceedings. Otherwise it would give an occasion to consider the validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of materials which were not before him at the time of the passing of the order. Otherwise it would give an occasion to consider the validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of materials which were not before him at the time of the passing of the order. Certainly the scope of the intra Court Appeal cannot be stretched to such an extent. In this situation the right of filing additional evidence would not be available. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant should file the documents which are sought to be filed in this Appeal as additional evidence before the learned Single Judge. If any documents are filed then the learned Single Judge shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. Subject to the above observation the appeal stands dismissed. ————