Dr. (Mrs.) Sita Bhateja''s Nursing Home and Others vs The District Judge, Bangalore and Another

Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.-This matter has come up for orders on office objection. Office has raised the question of maintainability on the ground that an order dismissing an application for recalling the order of dismissal for default is a revisable order under Section 115 of the C.P.C. On 7-7-1987. I recorded that the facts of the case posed more complicated questions than what the office had raised by way of objections. After recording my reasons for it, learned counsel was directed to address arguments. Time was taken to address arguments. To day it is stated that the existence of an alternative remedy was not a bar to maintain a petition under Article 226. But when the order of a Civil Court is questioned in the superior forum the remedy provided under the Code of Civil Procedure alone must be pursued and not others. Article 226 is not meant for circumventing or bypassing the Code of Civil Procedure.

One other argument urged by Mr. Vedantaiengar was that the relief under Article 226 which may be given, cannot be given under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That is a matter which is to be urged under Section 115 and judicially decided. It is not for this Court to speculate on this question. In the result, the objection is upheld. Papers may be returned to the counsel.