Karnataka HC declines relief under Article 226 in light of alternate remedy available under S. 115 CPC

Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of BV Nagarathna, J. held that the present writ petition was not maintainable.

The petitioner assailed the abovesaid order whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 in OS No. 28/11. The Court was of the opinion that as against the rejection of the said application, the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC. In such circumstances, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to file a Civil Revision Petition. [S.M. Rajasekharappa v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 49449/2013 (GM-CPC), dated 29.08.2017]

 

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.