IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1769 of 2009 (M/S) Patel B. Rai ..… Petitioner Versus Addl. District Judge & three others ….. Respondents Dated: March 15, 2011 Mr. Patel B. Rai, petitioner in person Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate for the respondents no.3 & 4 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order- dated 22.5.2009 passed by the respondent no.1-Addl. District Judge (FTC-I), Dehradun in Civil Appeal No.15/2007, whereby the regular First Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the trial court in O.S. No.115/1984 Patel B. Rai Vs. The Principal Velhams’ Boys School, was made affirmed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.3 and 4 raised a preliminary objection about the very maintainability of the writ petition and drew the attention of the Court towards Paragraph 5 of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and submitted that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy by way of Second Appeal u/s 100 C.P.C. for assailing the judgment dated 22.5.2009 passed in regular first appeal, and the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the initially the petitioner filed a civil suit which came to be dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 15.2.2007, against which the petitioner preferred a regular first appeal U/s 96 CPC, which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.5.2009 passed by the respondent no.1. In such view of the matter, now the alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner only to file a Second Appeal, as is provided U/s 100 C.P.C. before this Court. However, the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the 2 Constitution of India is not maintainable for assailing the judgment and order passed in a regular first appeal. Section 100 C.P.C. is mentioned below for the sake of convenience:- “100. Second appeal- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.” In view of what has been stated above, I am not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition on the ground of efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that the petitioner would be at liberty to file the second appeal, if he so wishes. (B.S. Verma, J.) 15.3.2011 Rdang 2