This is a purported appeal under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, post 1303 (1995), from the denial pursuant to G. L. c. 211, Section 3, of relief from an order entered against the plaintiff appellant in a G. L. c. 209A proceeding. The appellant has omitted necessary papers from the record: a copy of the petition to the single justice and a copy of the docket in the county court. An order entered in a G. L. c. 209A proceeding is not an interlocutory order of the trial court subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21. For the purposes of appeal in this case, S.J.C. Rule 2:21 is inapplicable. An appeal pursuant to the regular appellate process is the appropriate avenue for the appellant to pursue. The court need take no action pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21. The appellant may pursue his appeal according to the regular process.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Supreme Judicial Court Rule 2:21 (2), post 1303 (1995), concerning an appeal from a single justice's denial of relief from an interlocutory ruling in the trial court, requires an appellant's memorandum to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means." The appellant has failed to set forth reasons why relief after a successful appeal from any adverse final judgment in this case will not be adequate. Moreover, the appeal, insofar as it relies on G. L. c. 231, Section 118 (1994 ed.), is subject to the same jurisdictional defect as existed in Ashford v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., ante 563 (1995).

Judgment affirmed.