JUDGMENT Hon’ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.—Facts of the present case are as follows : Appellant has filed a Suit No. 229 of 2001 (Jagdish v. Mani Ram and others) before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basti against the respondents seeking following reliefs: mipkj ¼v½ ctfj;s fMØh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk Áfroknhx.k ÁFke oxZ dks lnSo ds fy, oftZr dj fn;k tkos fd os oknh ds 'kfUr iw.kZ dCtk n[ky vUnj tehu v] c] l] n esa fdlh rjg dk gLr{ksi u djsa] u gh nj[rku dkVs vkSj u cjokn djs vkSj u gh mlesa dbZ fuekZ.k djs] u gh fdlh Hkkafr oknh dks csn[ky djsA ¼c½ [kpkZ eqdnek o esgurkuk odhy dh Hkh fMØh cgd oknh f[kykQ Áfroknhx.k ÁFke oxZ lkfnj Qjek;k tkosA ¼l½ vykok ;k ctkt mipkj mijksDr ds oknh ftl fdlh vU; mipkj ds vfèkdkjh U;k;ky; dh fuxkg esa ik;s tkos rks mldh Hkh fMØh cgd oknh f[kykQ Áfroknhx.k ÁFke oxZ lkfnj QjekbZ tkosA 2. The learned Civil Judge vide an ex parte order dated 15.12.2007 dismissed the above mentioned suit. Challenging the said order, the appellants filed an appeal being Appeal No. 15 of 2009 before the District Judge, Basti, who vide order dated 6.7.2011, allowed the said appeal and decreed the suit by an ex parte order. 3. The respondent No. 1, herein filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order dated 6.7.2011 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The said application was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Basti vide order dated 11.9.2014. 3. The respondent No. 1, herein filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order dated 6.7.2011 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The said application was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Basti vide order dated 11.9.2014. The relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter: ^^lquk x;k gS i=koyh voyksduA ,d i{kh; vihy dks fujLr djk;s tkus gsrq ÁkFkhZ ds }kjk ;g vk/kkj fy;k x;k gS fd ftl lekpkj i= ds }kjk Ádk'ku djk;k x;k mldk Álkj.k iatkc jkT; esa ugha gksrk gSA vkSj mDr Ádk'ku ds }kjk rkehy i;kZIr ekurs gq, flfoy vihy ,d i{kh; :i ls vkKfIr dh x;h gSA foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks ;g rdZ gS fd ÁkFkhZ voj U;k;ky; esa crkSj Áfroknh okn rkehyh mifLFkr ugha vk;s Fks vkSu vehy esa Hkh okn rkehy mifLFkfr ugha vk;sA ÁkFkhZ us mDr ÁkFkZuk i= es viuk fuokl LFkku lkŒ lekSMk rIik nqcSfy;k ijxuk veksMk rglhy gjS;k ftyk cLrh vafdr fd;k gS vkSj ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ukjn ppkZ lekpkj ij i= dk Ádk'ku cLrh eS gSA vr% Lo;a ÁkFkhZ ds ÁkFkZuk i= ls ;g Li"V gS fd mldk fuokl LFkku ftyk cLrh esa gSA iatkc esa ugha gSA foi{kh ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk dk rdZ lgh gS fd ÁkFkhZ us ,d i{kh; flfoy vihy dks fujLr djk;s tkus gsrq tks vk/kkj fy;s gSa og i;kZIr ugha gS vr% ÁkFkZuk i= fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA** 4. The respondent No. 1 filed a Writ C No. 53619 of 2014 challenging the order dated 11.9.2014 before this Court. Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 13.1.2015 and directed that : “Let the application for recall of the ex parte decree be considered and decided afresh by the Court below, in the light of the observations made above, after hearing the parties concerned, in accordance with law, since th matter is an old one, the appellate Court is requested to expedite the proceedings of appeal and the same be taken to its logical end, without granting unnecessary adjournment of any of the parties.” 5. Now the appellant has approached before this Division Bench by filing the present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 6. Now the appellant has approached before this Division Bench by filing the present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 6. Today on 17.12.2018, despite the matter was called twice, none appeared on behalf of the appellant to address the Court, however, learned counsel for the respondent who appeared and submitted that the present special appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. For reference, Rule 5 of the Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules is mentioned hereinafter : “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 2[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 to 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. According to the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5, an appeal will lie first and foremost, from a judgment. Rule 5 then proceed to lay down the expected categories of exclusions where a special appeal will not be maintainable. The exclusions which have been specified in Rule 5 are : (i) A judgment passed in the exercise of the appeal jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court. (ii) an order made in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction. (iii) an order made in the exercise of power of Superintendence of High Court. (iv) an order made in the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction. (ii) an order made in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction. (iii) an order made in the exercise of power of Superintendence of High Court. (iv) an order made in the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction. (v) an order made in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 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 Central Act, with respect to a matter contained in the State List or the Concurrent List to the VIIth Schedule of 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 Revisional Jurisdiction under any such Act. 8. On the parameters of the abovementioned provisions, we have to examine as to whether the judgment assailed before us would fall within the scope and ambit of the exclusions which have been specified in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 9. From the records, it is clear that the order impugned before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition was an order passed under Order 40 Rule 19 of Civil Procedure Code, which is reproduced hereinafter : “Order 40 Rule 19. Re-admission of appeal dismissed for default.—Where is an appeal is dismissed under Rule 11, sub-rule (2) or rule 172 [***], the appellant may apply to the Appellate Court for the re-admission of the appeal; and, where it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing or from depositing the sum so required, the Court shall re-admit the appeal on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit.” 10. The order passed under Order 40 Rule 19 CPC was challenged before the learned Single Judge under the writ jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ, vide impugned order. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is an order made in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court, which is one of the categories of exclusion as mentioned above. Therefore, the present special appeal before this Court is not maintainable. 11. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ, vide impugned order. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is an order made in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court, which is one of the categories of exclusion as mentioned above. Therefore, the present special appeal before this Court is not maintainable. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, the special appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.