By The Court—The present special appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge on an application filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Sushila Devi and another person, presently arrayed as respondent nos.1 and 2 in the present appeal. 2. The learned Single Judge noticed the fact that on 26th November, 2010 the Court had issued notice on an application made by the present respondent nos. 1 and 2 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter referring to the order dated 29.6.2010, the Court restrained the opposite parties therein from demarcating or taking possession of the land in dispute. The present special appeal has been filed against the direction given by the learned Single Judge restraining the present appellants from demarcating or taking possession of the land in dispute. 3. A preliminary objection has been made by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the appeal is not maintainable under Chapter 8 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court. He submitted that in view of the provisions of Allahabad High Court(Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 no appeal is maintainable against an order passed by this Court in proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. He, therefore submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Sri Dharampal Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S. Niranjan and Sri P.K. Dubey on behalf of the appellants submitted that the order dated 15.2.2011, which has been passed while considering the application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India would relate to the power exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, the appeal would be maintainable. According to him, on that date proceeding under the Consolidation of Holdings Act was not before the learned Single Judge, therefore, the order impugned in the present appeal cannot be made referable to the proceeding under the Consolidation of Holding Act and the provisions of the Allahabad High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 would not be applicable. 5. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of preliminary objection regarding maintainability of appeal and are of the considered opinion that an intra Court appeal against an order passed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India would have been maintainable but the direction given by the learned Single Judge restraining the present appellants from demarcating or taking possession of the land in dispute in the order dated 15.2.2011 is referable to the power exercised under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which is in the pending proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. That being the position in view of the provisions of Allahabad High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 the present appeal is not maintainable. 6. However, Sri Dharampal Singh, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge proceeded on the wrong set of facts and did not take into consideration the various documents already filed by the appellants. Be that as it may, it will be open to the appellants to file an application for recall of the order of the learned Single Judge. Apart from it, the appellants are not remedyless. If so advised, they can challenge the order impugned in the present appeal by taking recourse to Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is dismissed. (Appeal dismissed) _____________