Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raju Jeswani, filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court challenging a judgment and decree dated 28th October 1989 passed by a trial court in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent, P.N. Devarajan. The suit was decreed in favor of the respondent. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 13th December 1999, presumably on the assumption that the suit was under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which would bar an appeal. However, upon perusal of the plaint and the impugned judgment, the court found that the suit was not under Section 6 of the said Act. Consequently, an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal to the District Court was available to the petitioner. The court noted that the writ petition was filed within the limitation period for filing an appeal, considering the time spent in obtaining certified copies. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner must avail the alternative remedy of appeal and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Where a suit is not under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, an appeal lies to the District Court, and a writ petition under Article 227 is not maintainable - Held that the petitioner must avail the alternative remedy of appeal (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal before the District Court.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 227
- Maintainability
- Suit under Section 6 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
