IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.680 OF 2010 DATED:27.9.2010 Between: Ayineedu Nageswara Rao … Appellant And The Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Narsapur, West Godavari District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.680 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) A suit filed by the respondents 2 to 6 came to be clinched to have abated due to the death of one of the defendants which was sought to be restored by bringing on the deceased – defendant’s legal representatives on record after having the delay condoned. The delay was condoned and the suit was restored to its original number by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur vide his order dated 07-02-2006, which reads: “Suit is restored to file. Issue notice to other side by 01.03.2006. For carrying out amendment and for filing neat copy of the plaint by then.” Being aggrieved, a civil revision was filed which was disposed of by judgment dated 13.08.2009, operative portion whereof is extracted hereunder: “This Court considered the matter and is convinced that the Civil Revision Petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not lie. Even if the petitioner perceives errors in the procedure adopted by the trial Court, remedy is to file appeal after disposal of the suit or take such pleas during the arguments. The Civil Revision Petition at this stage does not lie.” Again the appellant – petitioner has chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned single Judge, hence this writ Appeal. Maintainability of the petition does not call for any elaboration because answer is readily available from the judicial pronouncement handed down by the Apex Court in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat[1] in the following words; “…If there are two modes of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court and one of those modes has been chosen and exhausted it would not be a proper and sound exercise of discretion to grant relief in the other set of proceedings in respect of the same order of the Subordinate Court. The refusal to grant relief in such circumstances would be in consonance with the anxiety of the Court to prevent abuse of process as also to respect and accord finality to its own decisions.” The judgment supra disapproves exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in respect of an order of the Subordinate Court against which one of the remedies before the High Court itself has been already invoked. Admittedly in the case on hand the High Court has declined to interfere with the order in exercise of powers vested in it by dint of Article 227 of the Constitution. That being so the appellant could not invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the same order passed by the Subordinate Court. In that view of the matter, indulgence is declined. Writ Appeal is dismissed along with the miscellaneous petition. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 27-9-2010 B. Narsinga Rao [1] AIR 1970 SC 1