- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. Akhilesh Kalra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Subhash Upadhayaya, Brief Holder for respondents Nos. 1 & 2. None for respondents Nos. 3 to 5.
(2.) MR. Subhash Upadhayaya, the learned Brief Holder for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Special Appeal in view of the spe cific bar contained in Rule 5 of Chap ter VIII of the High Court Rules. Appellant Urba Dutt has filed this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 2/-0/-2007 passed in Review Application No. 887 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 378 of 2007 (M/s ). The appellant had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs : "wherefore, it is most respect fully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside order dated 3rd April 2007 passed by opposite party no. 1 in Misc. Civil Appeal No 5 of 2006 as well as order passed by opposite party No. 2 dated 10-02-2006 reject ing temporary injunction application preferred in Regular Suit No. 1 of 2006 Urba Dutt Vs. Harish Belwl and others contained in Annexure no. 1 and 2 to the writ petition and opposite parties be restrained to in terfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the plot No. C area 4427. 5 Sq. Ft. situated in UPSIDC Industrial Estate, Village Peepalsana Road, Halduwa, Ram Nagar, Nainital. "
(3.) THUS, it is apparent that the writ petition was filed against the rejection of the petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction by the Trial Court and the affirmation of the same by the lower appellate court. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 1/-0/-2007. The review petition, seeking review of the said order dated 1/-0/-2007, also stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 2/-0/-2007. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII, provid ing for Special Appeals, reads as follows: "5. Special appeal.- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judg ment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdic tion in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the su perintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the ex ercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdic tion 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 arbitra tor 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 mat ters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in 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. ";