JUDGMENT : DR. B.R.SARANGI, J. 1. Defendant no.3, as appellant, has filed this intra-Court appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 27.08.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in CMP No.195 of 2015. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondents no.1 to 4, as plaintiffs, filed Civil Suit No.34 of 2010 on 02.04.2010 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Salipur for correction of their map of consolidation plot no.1020, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. On receipt of the notice, the appellant-defendant no.3 filed counter claim on 25.01.2012 for correction of map of his consolidation plot no.1018, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. At the stage of evidence, respondents no.1 to 4 examined P.W.2, a private survey knowing Amin, whereas the appellant examined D.W.2, another private survey knowing Amin. Both the private Amins, namely, P.W.2 and D.W.2 visited the spot and measured the suit plots as per the field and map, and submitted their reports in the court below. There was a conflict in the reports of both the private Amins. Consequentially, the appellant-defendant no.3 filed an application under Order-XXVI Rule-9 read with Section 151, CPC for calling for report from the Civil Court survey knowing Commissioner regarding actual area of plot no.1018 (appellant’s plot) and plot no.1020 (plot of the respondents no.1 to 4) as per the consolidation map. The said application was allowed on contest by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) by order dated 23.07.2014. Pursuant thereto, the Civil Court Commissioner measured the plots no.1018 and 1020 as per consolidation map, prepared the report on 08.12.2014 and submitted the same in the court below on 10.12.2014. 3. On receiving the report from the Civil Court Commissioner, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) posted the case to 17.12.2014 for consideration of the said report. As none had filed objection to the said report of the Civil Court Commissioner, the matter was posted to 23.12.2014 for orders. By order dated 23.12.2014, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) accepted the report and formed it part of the record. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.12.2014 of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) accepting report of the Civil Court Commissioner, respondents no.1 to 4 filed CMP No.195 of 2015 before this Court. By order dated 23.12.2014, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) accepted the report and formed it part of the record. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.12.2014 of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) accepting report of the Civil Court Commissioner, respondents no.1 to 4 filed CMP No.195 of 2015 before this Court. Learned Single Judge, by order dated 27.08.2015, set aside the order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) stating inter alia that when the appellant-defendant no.3 had prayed for to find out the actual area of plot no.1018 and plot no.1020 in consolidation map, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) could not have accepted the report after having acceded to the request of the appellant-defendant no.3 to depute a survey knowing Amin Commissioner without measuring the suit land. 4. Mr. R.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant no.3 states that learned Single Judge has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record by presuming that no measurement had been undertaken so far as plot no.1018 and plot no.1020 in consolidation map are concerned. But, effectively the Civil Court Commissioner had measured the land and submitted report, which was accepted by the impugned order dated 26.03.2014. As such, the order dated 27.08.2015 is liable to be set aside. When the matter was listed for fresh admission, a query was made by this Court with regard to maintainability of the writ appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that the writ appeal is maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Smt. Radhikabai, AIR 1986 SC 1272 ; Ratnagiri Disttict Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 9; Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudlliyar vs Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha, AIR 1992 SC 185 ; Mangalbhai v. Dr. Radhyshyam, AIR 1993 SC 806 ; Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645 ; M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad, AIR 1999 SC 2423 ; M/s. Advani Oeilikon Ltd. V. Machindra Govind Makasare, AIR 2011 Bombay 84; Susant Kumar Roy v. Mira Roy and Ors, AIR 2007 ORI 26 ; Sh. Radhyshyam, AIR 1993 SC 806 ; Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645 ; M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad, AIR 1999 SC 2423 ; M/s. Advani Oeilikon Ltd. V. Machindra Govind Makasare, AIR 2011 Bombay 84; Susant Kumar Roy v. Mira Roy and Ors, AIR 2007 ORI 26 ; Sh. Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat AIR 2015 SC 3623 and Himalayan Co-operative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, AIR 2015 SC 2867 . 5. The question with regard to maintainability of the intra-Court appeal has been considered by the apex Court in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9 SCC 1 and the apex Court, relying upon the various judgments, held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers a power on a High Court to issue writs, orders, or directions mentioned therein for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. This is neither an appellate nor a revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution exercises original jurisdiction, though the said jurisdiction shall not be confused with the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court. This jurisdiction, though original in character as contrasted with its appellate and revisional jurisdictions, is exercisable throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and may, for convenience, be described as extraordinary original jurisdiction. If that be so, it cannot be contended that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a continuation of the proceedings under the Act concerned. The order passed by the Civil Court is only amenable to be scrutinized by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Once it is exclusively assailable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no intra-Court appeal is maintainable. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, a letters patent appeal or an intra-Court appeal in respect of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dealing with an order arising out of a proceeding from a civil court would not lie before the Division Bench. No writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. 6. No writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. 6. Where the facts justify a party in filing an application either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, and the party chooses to file his application under both these Articles, in fairness and justice to such party and in order not to deprive him of the valuable right of appeal, the Court ought to treat the application as being made under Article 226, and if in deciding the matter, in the final order, the Court gives ancillary directions which may pertain to Article 227, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent where the substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under Article 226. If the judgment under appeal falls squarely within four corners of Article 227, it goes without saying that intra-Court appeal from such judgment would not be maintainable. On the other hand, if the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court for issuance of certain writ under Article 226, although Article 227 is also mentioned, and principally the judgment appealed against falls under Article 226, the appeal would be maintainable. What is important to be ascertained is the true nature of order passed by the learned Single Judge and not what provision he mentions while exercising such powers. A statement by a learned Single Judge that he has exercised power under Article 227, cannot take away the right of appeal against such judgment if power is otherwise found to have been exercised under Article 226. The vital factor for determination of maintainability of intra Court appeal is the nature of jurisdiction invoked by the party and the true nature of principal order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Consequently, maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, the nature and character of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, and the type of directions issued, regard being had to the jurisdictional perspectives in the constitutional context. Whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge that has travelled to him from the other tribunals or authorities, would depend upon many a facet. Whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge that has travelled to him from the other tribunals or authorities, would depend upon many a facet. It is clarified that in certain enactments, the District Judges function as Election Tribunals from whose orders a revision or a writ may lie depending upon the provisions in the Act. In such a situation, the superior court, that is, the High Court, even if required to call for the records, the District Judge need not be a party. But how the jurisdiction under the letters patent appeal is to be exercised cannot exhaustively be stated. It will depend upon the Bench adjudicating the lis how it understands and appreciates the order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such, there cannot be a straitjacket formula for the same. But the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has to be guided by the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court. The apex Court in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji (supra) summarised the guidelines in paragrtaph-45, which reads as follows: “45. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to summarise our conclusions as follows: 45.1. Whether a letters patent appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge that has travelled to him from the other tribunals or authorities, would depend upon many a facet. The court fee payable on a petition to make it under Article 226 or Article 227 or both, would depend upon the rules framed by the High Court. 45.2. The order passed by the civil court is only amenable to be scrutinised by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is different from Article 226 of the Constitution and as per the pronouncement in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 , no writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. 45.3. The writ petition can be held to be not maintainable if a tribunal or authority that is required to defend the impugned order has not been arrayed as a party, as it is a necessary party. 45.4. The tribunal being or not being party in a writ petition is not determinative of the maintainability of a letters patent appeal.” 8. The writ petition can be held to be not maintainable if a tribunal or authority that is required to defend the impugned order has not been arrayed as a party, as it is a necessary party. 45.4. The tribunal being or not being party in a writ petition is not determinative of the maintainability of a letters patent appeal.” 8. This Court had got an occasion to deal with the similar question in Saswati Patras v. Saraswati Biswal, 2016 (II) OLR 3 , in which the election to a Member of Zilla Parishad, Puri was under challenge. The question was as to whether under Section 32 of the Zilla Parishad Act, the District Judge has got jurisdiction to try the election petition. While considering the same, this Court held that in an intra-Court appeal, order passed by the Civil Judge is only amenable to be scrutinized by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Once it is exclusively assailable under Article 227 of the constitution of India, no intra-Court appeal is maintainable. As such, jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A letters patent appeal or an intra-Court appeal in respect of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dealing with the order arising out of proceeding from the civil court would not lie before the Division Bench. No writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court, and therefore, no letters patent appeal will be maintainable. 9. In Rabindranath @ Rabindranath Jena v. Bijaya Kumar Bhuyan & ors. 2016 (II) ILR –CUT-28, this Court has already taken into consideration the maintainability of the writ appeal while considering the provisions contained under Section 31 of the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 and this Court has taken similar view as has been held by the apex Court in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji (supra) which has also been taken note of judgment of the apex Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 and this Court has also taken similar view in Smt. Swarnaprava Pattnaik @ Das v. Dibakara Satpathy (Dead) through L.Rs. Lilly Satpathy @ Panda and others (Writ Appeal No.346 of 2012) dismissed on 08.12.2016 since the order passed by the learned Single Judge by exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the writ appeal is not maintainable. This Court had also taken a similar view in Ananda Mahapatra v. Bijay Mahapatra, 2017 OLR 391 . 10. The judgments referred to by Mr. R.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, in face of the aforesaid settled position of law, are of no assistance to his contention. This Court is refrained from making any discussion on such judgments, as the same were decided on their own facts and circumstances, which are distinguishable from the case in hand. 11. Considering the law laid down by the apex Court as well as this Court, as discussed above, we are of the considered view that, as the learned Single Judge, while deciding CMP No.195 of 2015 has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present writ appeal is not maintainable. Since we have held that the writ appeal is not maintainable, we are not inclined to enter into the merits of the case. 12. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to cost.