PANCHAYYA Vs. MALLAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition is the plaintiff before the Court of the civil Judge (Junior Division) at Jamkhandi. In this petition, he has prayed for quashing the order dated 12th June, 2000 made on LA. Nos. I to III in O. S. No. 28 of 2000.

(2.) SRI Kulkarni, while is unable to dispute that the petitioner has a right of miscellaneous first appeal provided against the impugned order under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, submits that since the Advocates at Jamkhandi are on strike and have abstained from attending the Courts, the petitioner is not in a position to avail of the remedy provided to him under the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection, he drew my attention to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder:

(3.) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the correctness of the order impugned. Admittedly, the right of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is whether the right of appeal provided is not an efficacious remedy; and in the circumstances pleaded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, whether this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India?