DURGA PRASADversusNAVEEN CHANDRA AND ORS.

)
I




                                   DURGA PRASAD                                 A
                                             v.
                          NAVEEN CHANDRA AND ORS.

                                    MARCH 11, 1996

                  [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                         B

             Constitution of India, 1950 : Ariicle 226.

            Writ jurisdiction-Cannot be invoked for by-passing the procedure
     prescribed under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
                                                                                 c
             Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

             Sections 96, 104 and 115--0rder 43 Rule 1--0rder 9 Rule I3.

            Suit-Decree-Application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside of
     decree--Objection to the maintainability of application--Order rejecting ob- D
     jection-Writ against order-Maintainability of-Held impugned order was
·t   not appealable either under Section 96 or under Order 43 Rule 1 read with
     Section 104-But revision under section 115 was maintainable-Invoking writ
     jurisdiction instead of filing revision held not proper-Held no inteiference
     was called for against order dismissing writ petition-Appellant can avail of E
     remedy open under law.

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4497 of
     1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.95 of the Allahabad            F
     High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 37212 of 1995.

             M.P. Shorawala for the Appellant.

             The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                G
             Leave granted.

           The respondent has filed a suit for specific performance and after
     the evidence of the appellant was closed on 12.3.1991, the defendant's
     evidence was directed to be recorded on 20.3.1991. It would appear that
     the matter was adjourned frqm time to time till 11.1.1994. On that date, H
                                       209
    210                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A the respondent seemed to have declined to contest the suit and sought
    adjournment. The application for adjournment was rejected and after
    hearing arguments, judgment was reserved and was pronounced on
    14.1.1994. Respondent No. 2 made an application on 27.1.94 to set aside
    the decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Similar application was filed by
    other respondents. While that application was pending, the appellant
B   moved an application objecting to the maintainability of the application
    and to hear it as a preliminary point. That petition came to be dismissed
    by the trial Court on 7.10.95. Against the said order, the appellant filed
    writ petition under Act. 226 of the Cor:stitution and that was dismissed by
    the impugned order dated 21.12.95 by the High Court. Thus this appeal by       •
C   special leave.

          On the last occasion when the matter had come up for admission,
    we had asked the learned counsel as to how the writ petition is main-
    tainable in the circumstances. The learned counsel sought for and the
    matter was adjourned. Thus it has come up today. The appellant's counsel
D   contended that three remedies are open to the appellant under the CPC,
    namely, right of appeal under section 96 or appeal under Order 43 read
    with section 104 or a revision under section 115 CPC. In view of the fact
    that the matter does not come within the four corners of any of the three
    remedies, the appellant is left with no other remedy except approaching
E   the High Court under Art. 226. It is true that the impugned order is not
    appealable one either under section 96 or under Order 43 Rule 1 read with
    section 104 CPC. But still a revision would be maintainable and whether
    the order could be revised or not is a matter to be considered by the High
    Court on merits. But instead of availing of that remedy, the appellant has
    invoked jurisdiction under Art. 226 which is not warranted and the proce-
F   dure prescribed under the CPC cannot be by-passed by availing of the
    remedy not maintainable under Article 226. U oder these circumstances,
    we decline to interfere with the order, it is open to the appellant to avail
    of such remedy as is open under law.

          The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
G
    T.N.A.                                                   Appeal dismissed.