1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3653 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 246 OF 2009 Bhiku Pandur Vikari (since deceased) through his legal heirs and Ors. .. Appellants. vs. Vidya Prasarini Sabha, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. P.B. Shah for the appellants. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Adv., i/by Mr. S.N. Chandrachud for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 & 11. Mr. R.M. Patane, AGP., for Respondent Nos. 13 & 14. CORAM : J. N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. & B.R. GAVAI, JJ. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : 2 The appellants challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.6.2009 vide which the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellants and has relegated them to exhaust the alternate remedy available to them. 2. The petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 16.11.1987 and certificate issued under section 88 B dated 16.11.1989. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition was filed almost after 20 years and also observed that the petitioner has alternative remedy to file a revision. 3. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the petition. He submits that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the revision is maintainable whereas as a matter of fact in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Kondiba Laxman Hanmar since deceased by his legal heirs ad another vs. Krishnarao Anandrao Dalavi and other, reported in 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. 484 a petition is tenable. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge also failed to take into consideration that a suit filed by the respondent trust for possession was pending before the learned Civil Judge till 2003 and thereafter before the appellate 3 Court till 2004 and even as on today the second appeal is pending. He submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration that the only remedy available for the petitioner is by way of a writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is thus clear that even according to the petitioner himself the certificate under Section 88 B could have been challenged only by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge has found that the certificate under Section 88 B which was issued on 16.11.1989 is sought to be challenged in 2009. It is a settled law that when a party seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India it is expected to do so as expeditiously as possible and without there being any delay. It is also settled law that jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is a discretionary jurisdiction and that the Court may refuse to exercise such a jurisdiction when a party fails to satisfy the Court that it has approached this Court within a reasonable time. The learned Single Judge by giving a reasoning that the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of 20 years from the date on which the impugned certificate was issued, has refused to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge so as to invoke the appellate 4 jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the civil application does not survive. The same also stands dismissed. ( J. N. PATEL, ACTING C. J.) ( B.R. GAVAI,, J.)