1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8717 OF 2009 1. N.T.L.Telelinks Pvt.Ltd. Through Shri Divakar Madhukar Garud, Age 52 years, Occu: Service, r/o 29, "Vithal Charni", College Road, Nashik - 5 and another. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1 M/s National Tale City, Through it's proprietor, Rajesh Vasudeo Yewle, Age 33 years, Occu: Business, r/o Prabhat Galli, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. and others ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.M.L.Sangit, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr.P.S.Shendurnikar, Adv., for respondent no.1 ... CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE :11/8/2010 *** PER COURT : 1. This writ petition challenges order dt. 14.12.2007 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, below Exh.1, in Special Civil Suit No.28/2000. The objection 2 taken by the petitioner that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit has been rejected, against which the present writ petition has been preferred. 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 4.1.2010 for final disposal of the matter at the stage of admission. Shri P.S.Shendurnikar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground of existence of an alternate statutory effective remedy to challenge this order. He submits that if the contentions of the petitioner raised in the petition are accepted then the proceedings before the trial Court would come to an end. In that event, the remedy under Section 115 of C.P.C. is provided to challenge such order. He further submits that there is limitation prescribed for preferring the revision application. 3. Shri Sangit, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there exists an alternate remedy of filing revision application under Section 115 of C.P.C., however, he submits that, the present writ petition be permitted to be converted into revision application under Section 115 of C.P.C. He relies upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2002 (4) Mh.L.J. 597(Bharatkumar Shrimannarayan 3 Agrawal and others Vs. M/s Anita Trust through Ku.Priti d/o Razanbhai Patel and another). He submits that even writ petition under Article 227 may also be converted into revision petition under Section 115 but that can be done in an isolated case in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and that should not be adopted as a regular course for defeating the intention of the Legislature. The observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment are in relation to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which, in my opinion, do not exist in the present case. Apart from this, there is a period of limitation prescribed for preferring revision application and the said provision cannot be circumvented by permitting conversion of this petition under Article 227 into a revision petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. 4. In view of above, the instant writ petition is dismissed on the ground that there exists an alternate, efficacious and effective remedy under Section 115 of C.P.C. to the petitioner. [R.K.DESHPANDE, J.] agp/8717-09wp