IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 296 of 2010 Rajkumari W/O Late Sri Pratap Singh and two others. … Petitioners. Versus Anurag S/O Late Sri Goverdhan Dass and another. … Respondents. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gopal Datt Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Date July 06, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 30-11-2009 passed by the Additional District Judge,, IV F.T.C. Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 13095 of 1973 (arising out of F.A. No. 106 of 1966), Pratipal Singh Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, whereby the application of the applicant Ram Murti moved under Sections 151 and 152 of the C.P.C. has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable against the impugned order, but a revision is maintainable. I have perused the order impugned. It appears that one Ram Murti moved an application purporting to be under Sections 151/152 of the C.P.C. with a prayer to amend and modify the order dated 12-4-1968 passed in First Appeal No. 106 of 1966. By the impugned order, the application has been rejected. The order impugned is not an interim order, therefore, revision is maintainable under Section 115 of the C.P.C. On the ground of alternate remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to file a revision along with an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay, if so advised. The certified copy of the impugned order dated 30-11- 2009 be returned to the petitioners and a photocopy thereof be kept on record. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP