MISRA, J. - (1.)THE plaintiff/petitioner had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kota for fixation of standard rent under Section 6 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 against the defendant/respondent No. 1 wherein the written statement of the defendant/respondent No. 1 was filed and issues were framed. THE trial Court determined `interim rent' which was to be paid during pendency of the suit and thereafter, the matter proceeded for trial and several opportunities were granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to adduce evidence which he failed to comply and consequently the order for closing evidence was passed with which the petitioner is aggrieved. According to the petitioner's advocate, only three opportunities were granted to lead evidence which was insufficient.
(2.)BE that as it may, this Court is not required to enter into the question as to how many opportunities could have been sufficient to lead evidence. The facts disclose that the plaintiff/petitioner had filed a revision before a learned Single Judge of this Court bearing SB Civil Revision Petition No. 540/2003 and this revision petition was dismissed by order dated 26. 5. 2003 wherein the learned Single Judge has held that the revision petition was directed against an interlocutory order of the Courts below and the reversal thereof will not result in final disposal of the suit so as to entertain the revision against the same.
The petitioner felt aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed on the revision petition, but instead of preferring an appeal before the appropriate forum against this order passed in the revision thought it proper to file this writ petition for setting aside the order of the trial Court.

It is quite apparent that the petitioner has already exhausted his remedy by filing the revision petition against the order of the trial Court and the same was dismissed on merit and hence, a writ petition which is practically in the nature of an appeal against an order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding a revision, cannot be held maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner however, relied upon an authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhna Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Another (1 ). The learned Judges of the Apex Court have observed that where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying upon this observation it was submitted that the petitioner has filed this writ petition because a revision under the CPC has been barred and hence he was at liberty to file a writ petition. While there can be no quarrel about this proposition, the fact remains that the petitioner had already preferred a revision petition before this Court and that has been dismissed on merit and hence in my considered opinion a writ petition for the same reason before another coordinate Bench of this High Court if entertained would practically have the effect of entertaining an appeal against an order passed by a coordinate bench while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. This clearly cannot be permitted. The petitioner's remedy in my view against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in a revision lies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and not before another Single Judge of the High Court. The position perhaps would have been different if the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court against the interlocutory order of the trial Court without filing any revision against this order. In the existing situation if the petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, he has to prefer an appeal against the same and the correctness or legality of that order cannot be examined in a writ petition by another Single Judge of the same Court.

For all these reasons this writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. .