The Court clarified that petitioners challenging the trial court's interlocutory order on jurisdiction under Article 227 had an efficacious remedy via civil revision. Consequently, the writ petition was not entertained.
Liberty to petitioners to assail the impugned order in civil revision proceedings under Section 115 CPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6169 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ayush Jain And 4 Others Respondent :- Smt. Shashi Counsel for Petitioner :- Sumit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- Vijay Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Against the impugned order dated 7.5.2019 deciding issues no. 4 and 6 finally relating to jurisdiction of the trial court to try the suit and whether it is barred by Sections 34, 38, 41 and 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act or not, the petitioners have efficacious remedy of filing civil revision under Section 115 CPC, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent.
Consequently, this Court declines to entertain the challenge in the instant petition.
The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to assail the impugned order in appropriate proceedings.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Chandan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners seeking revision under Article 227 against the trial court's order on jurisdiction barred by Specific Relief Act had an efficacious alternative remedy to file civil revision un
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ayush Jain And 4 Others
Smt. Shashi
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
