JUDGMENT 1. Learned Counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the intra Court appeal in view of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 841/2009) in the case of Abhishek Mundra v. Navratan Mai Jain & Ors. decided on 9.11.2010 . 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the earlier judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukh Dev v. Prakash Chandra reported in 2010(2) Western Law Cases 500 has been considered by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kartar Singh v. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 2010(3) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 368 and has distinguished the case of Sukh Dev (supra). 3. It is also submitted that an S.L.P. was preferred against the judgment of Kartar Singh, which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact that the order challenge was interlocutory before the learned Single Judge and looking to the nature of the order passed by the learned Single judge, this intra Court appeal is not maintainable. 4. We perused the judgments referred above including the judgment of Sukh Dev (supra) in which one of us (Hon'ble Justice Prakash Tatia) was a party and the judgment delivered in Kartar Singh as well as the judgment delivered in the case of Abhishek Mundra (supra), particularly in view of the observation made in the case of Abhishek Mundra, we are of the view that this intra Court appeal is not maintainable. We would like to quote the relevant portion from the judgment of Abhishek Mundra, which clearly demonstrate that the present intra Court appeal is not maintainable. "In Kartar Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has distinguished the aforesaid judgment on the ground that it was rendered in a context of a pending civil suit before the civil Court, thus no dent is caused in the decision rendered in Sukh Dev (supra), by the decision rendered in Kartar Singh, which was a decision arising out of Board of Revenue." 5. In view of the above reasons, this special appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. 6. In view of the above reasons, this special appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. 6. At this juncture, we would like to mention here that today itself in the case of Shashikala Singh v. Chand Kanwar we have issued notices in intra Court appeal, however, so was done because of the reason that the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Abhishek Mundra (supra) not brought to our knowledge. 7. Since the special appeal itself has been dismissed, the stay application stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******