The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court's discretion under Art. 226 cannot be exercised in a manner that would lead to conflicting judgments by the same court on the same issue.

( 1 ) THIS petition is completely misconceived. It is directed against the decision of the Court below on issue No. 7 which was in regard to sufficiency of the court fee stamps and valuation. This very order was challenged by the petitioner himself in another jurisdiction of this Court by way of a revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court dismissed that revision on the ground that it was open to the petitioner to challenge the order in an appeal should a decree be passed against him. On the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution straightway.

( 2 ) I have not the slightest doubt that the discretion of this Court under Art. 226 cannot be exercised in the present circumstances This court having declined to interfere with the impugned order in the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that he has a remedy available to him by way of an appeal in case a decree is passed against him cannot review the same order in the exercise of power vested under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It will virtually amount to sitting in appeal against the order passed by this very Court though in another jurisdiction unless of course leave is granted by the court dismissing the revision or appeal. It is apparent that if this petition is entertained and should it be allowed, two conflicting judgments would come in existence in regard to the same issue by the same court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition allowed.

.