JUDGMENT RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Smt.M.V.Ramana Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "The Hon'ble Court may be pleased a) to allow the Civil Revision Petition setting aside the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry in I.A.No.Nil/2023 (unnumbered) in O.S.No.195 of 2015 dtd. 21/9/2023; b) to direct the principal District Judge, Rajahmundry to dispose of the application in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to this petitioner; c) Issue further appropriate directions as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice". 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property, subject matter of suit, from respondent No.2 - Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation for valid consideration. But the transfer deed was not executed, so the suit was filed against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 14/9/2015. The suit was decreed exparte against respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 11/3/2016. The 2nd respondent filed an application I.A.No.1406 of 2016 to set aside the ex-parte decree which was allowed and the ex-parte decree was set aside by the learned V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District vide judgment dtd. 26/11/2017. Against this order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3075 of 2017 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 14/3/2022. This Court observed that it is needless to observe that the written statement, if filed by the defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein), the same may be considered in accordance with law. 5. In O.S.No.195 of 2015, the present respondent No.3 and 4 filed an application I.A.No.1347 of 2013 under Order 1 Rule 10 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC for their impleadment which was rejected by an order, dtd. 21/8/2019 and challenging the said order, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed C.R.P.No.3112 of 2019 which was allowed by this Court, vide order dtd. 1/3/2021 permitting them to contest the suit as defendant Nos.3 and 4 with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 6. 21/8/2019 and challenging the said order, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed C.R.P.No.3112 of 2019 which was allowed by this Court, vide order dtd. 1/3/2021 permitting them to contest the suit as defendant Nos.3 and 4 with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in O.S.No.195 of 2015 the petitioner filed an application I.A.No.Nil of 2023 (unnumbered) under Sec. 151 R/w. Order 46 Rule 1 of C.P.C., with the following prayer: "For the reasons mentioned in the above said affidavit the petitioner prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased to provide clarification of question of law, whether order in CRP.No.3112 of 2019 permits re-opening of the decree against 1st defendant, (ii) whether in a suit for specific performance against 1st defendant, after decree dtd. 14/06/2016 defendants 3 and 4 could be added to decreed suit, (iii) what is the effect of direction in CRP.No.3112/2019 after decree in suit on 14/06/2019 against 1st defendant in the interest of justice." 7. Order 46 Rule 1 CPC is in respect of Sec. 113 CPC which provides for making reference. So the petitioner prayed for making reference on the points as prayed in his application as quoted above. 8. On the aforesaid application, learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, passed the following order dtd. 21/9/2023: "Record is clear and no such reference is required and the petition is not maintainable. Hence, returned." 9. Challenging the order dtd. 21/9/2023, the C.R.P was presented in the Registry of this Court. 10. The Registry returned the C.R.P.(SR).No.42397 of 2023, with the following objections: "Please clarify and state as to how this CRP(SR) is entertainable against the office objection i.e., mere office objection of the Court below is not a ground to file the CRP in this Hon'ble High Court." 11. The CRP(SR) was resubmitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with the following endorsement: "In Para 16 of the petition it is clearly stated that the order of the learned District Judge amounts to rejection of petition. Please go through the citation mentioned in para 16 and the objection of the office is clearly answered in para 16. Hence, re-submitted." 12. The matter is placed "for orders of the Court". 13. Please go through the citation mentioned in para 16 and the objection of the office is clearly answered in para 16. Hence, re-submitted." 12. The matter is placed "for orders of the Court". 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Vaditho Anantharao Naik v. Bhoomisetty Rajaiah, 1994(1) ALT 486 . to contend that this CRP is maintainable. 14. The case of Vaditho Anantharao Naik (1st cited supra) replied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted. That was a case of return of plaint by District Court but the A.P.High Court found it in substance rejection of plaint and held CRP to be maintainable. Present is not a case of return of plaint or rejection of plaint. 15. The order dtd. 21/9/2023 which is under challenge is passed on the petitioner's application for making reference, and is by the learned District Judge, returning the said application after observing that the application was not maintainable. In the view of this Court, the order dtd. 21/9/2023 cannot be termed 'a mere office objection' as noted by the Registry in its objection. It affects the petitioner and deprives him of the legal recourse that may be open under Sec. 113 of CPC. The order has the trappings of a judicial order. It cannot be said that the same is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In M/s. Estralla Rubber vs Dass Estate (Private) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. 17. In view of the aforesaid, overruling the objection of the Registry, the CRP filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is entertained. 18. Let the Registry allot the number to this petition. 19. On merits of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was maintainable and the view taken by the learned District Judge is not correct. 20. To consider the aforesaid submission, the provisions of Sec. 113 r/w Order 46 Rule 1 deserve to be reproduced. 21. Sec. 113 of CPC reads as under: "113. 19. On merits of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was maintainable and the view taken by the learned District Judge is not correct. 20. To consider the aforesaid submission, the provisions of Sec. 113 r/w Order 46 Rule 1 deserve to be reproduced. 21. Sec. 113 of CPC reads as under: "113. Reference to High Court:- Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, any Court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court, and the High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. [Provided that where the Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court. Explanation: In this Sec., "Regulation" means any Regulation of the Bengal, Bombay or Madras Code or Regulation as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897, (10 of 1897) or in the General Clauses Act of a State]". 22. The expression 'Prescribed' in Sec. 113, would mean 'prescribed by Rules' as per Sec. 2(16) of CPC in definition clause. 23. Order 46 Rule 1 of CPC reads as under: "1. Reference of question to High Court:- Where, before or on the hearing of a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal, or where, in the execution of any such decree, any question of law or usage having the force of law arises, on which the Court trying the suit or appeal, or executing the decree, entertains reasonable doubt, the Court may, either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained, and refer such statement with its own opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court." 24. In view of Order 46 Rule 1 CPC, reference may be made, if the decree which may be passed in suit or in an appeal 'is not subject to appeal'. In other words, if the decree in the suit or appeal is subject to appeal i.e., an appealable decree, reference would not be competent which cannot be made neither suo-moto nor on an application of any of the parties. The application for making reference would not be maintainable. 25. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not submit that the decree in O.S.No.195 of 2015 would not be subject to appeal. 26. In Behramshaw Hormanshah Bharda v. Dastoorji Hormasdyar Kayoji Mirza, AIR1980Guj74. the Gujarat High Court held as under: "We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Vakil because the opening words of Sec. 113 are "Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed". The word "prescribed" means prescribed by rules. Order XLVI of the Civil P. C. provides the conditions and limitations of making a reference to the High Court. Rule I of Order XLVI provides: "Where, before or on the hearing of a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal, or where, in the execution of any such decree, any question of law or usage having' the force of law arises, on which the Court. trying the suit or appeal, or executing the decree, entertains reasonable doubt, the Court may, either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, draw up a statement of the facts of the, case and the point on which doubt is entertained, and refer such statement with its own opinion an the point for the decision of the High Court". Now it may be noted that one of the conditions for exercising the powers of reference as prescribed by 0. XLVI R. I is that the suit or the appeal at the hearing of which or in the course of which a doubt regarding any point arises must be a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal. XLVI R. I is that the suit or the appeal at the hearing of which or in the course of which a doubt regarding any point arises must be a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal. An appeal always lies under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to the High Court against the decree of a Civil Judge, Senior Division passed in a Special Civil Suit and therefore the power, of reference under Sec. 113 main part cannot be exercised in the instant case in the light of the provisions of 0. XLVI R. 1. Hence this contention of Mr. Vakil based on Sec. 113 main part must also be rejected". 27. In Pantala Nagaiah v. State, 1960 ALT 793 . the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad after referring to Order 46 Rule 1 CPC also held that: "There is another limitation indicated in Order 46, Rule 1 namely, that the matter should be one not subject to appeal". 28. Consequently, the impugned order holding the application for reference 'not maintainable' is legal and valid and does not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was decreed ex-parte on 11/3/2016 and the ex-parte decree was not set aside against the Defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) but only against the defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein). Consequently, in C.R.P.No.3112 of 2019, the respondent Nos.3 & 4 could not be directed by this Court to be impleaded vide order dtd. 1/3/2021. 30. The aforesaid submissions deserve rejection. Firstly, the orders of this Court dtd. 1/3/2021 in C.R.P.No. 3112 of 2019 and the order dtd. 14/3/2022 in C.R.P.No.3075 of 2017 have attained finality. Secondly, it is also not open to the petitioner to contend to the contrary as decided in the aforesaid revisions, neither in the present Civil Revision Petition nor before the learned Trial Court in the pending suit. 31. Further, the ex-parte decree was set aside by the learned Trial Court and the said order was affirmed by this Court by dismissing petitioner's C.R.P.No.3075 of 2017. A perusal of the judgment dtd. 14/3/2022 does not show that the ex-parte decree was set aside only against a particular defendant in the suit and not as a whole. 31. Further, the ex-parte decree was set aside by the learned Trial Court and the said order was affirmed by this Court by dismissing petitioner's C.R.P.No.3075 of 2017. A perusal of the judgment dtd. 14/3/2022 does not show that the ex-parte decree was set aside only against a particular defendant in the suit and not as a whole. Only because one of the defendants files the application to set aside the ex-parte decree that would not mean, setting aside of the ex-parte decree only against such defendant. A perusal of the order dtd. 14/3/2022 also shows that in the Trial Court, the suit was posted for 29/3/2016 but it was advanced/preponed to 11/3/2016, without notice to the defendants and on such date the exparte decree was passed. Consequently, the exparte decree was set aside in the previous CRP proceedings. 32. The learned District Judge has observed in the impugned order that 'the record is clear'. As such when the court entertained no doubt, there was no question of making a reference. 33. This Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order, There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition. 34. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. 35. Let a complete copy of the petitioner's I.A.No.Nil of 2023 in O.S.No.195/2015, annexed to this petition, with the endorsement of the order dtd. 21/9/2023 as passed thereon, along with copy of this Order, be sent to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, to be placed on the record of the suit.