- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff challenging the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "appellate court') in Civil Appeal No.14 of 2009, whereby the appellate court while allowing the appeal of the respondents-defendants, set aside the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) and Judl. Magistrate, First Class-West, Jaipur City, Jaipur in T.I. Application No.1162 of 2008.
(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner- association has filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining them from using the word 'Rajasthan' and representing the State Government, at the State Level Sports Competition, in view of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). The petitioner had also filed an application being TI Application No.1162 of 2008 seeking temporary injunction of the similar nature during the pendency of the suit. The trial court allowed the said application vide the order dated 19.9.2008, against which, the respondents had preferred an appeal being No.14 of 2008 before the appellate court. The appellate court vide the impugned order dated 7.7.2009 allowed the said appeal, against which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel Mr.Ashish Sharma for the respondents raising a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the petition submitted that the petitioner has stated in the petition that the same was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however the challenge in the petition being the order passed by the appellate court, the petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable. He has relied upon the decision of Apex court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v/s Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329. The court does not find any substance in the said preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents. In case of Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai and Ors, (2003) 6 SCC 675, the Apex Court has observed as under: "Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227." The Apex court has further observed: "In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions."
(3.) IN view of the above, it is held that though the petition is filed under 226, the same is treated as having been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;