ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, challenging the inaction on the part of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellandu, in disposing of Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 in DVC No.8 of 2021, pending on its file.

2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Respondent/complainant and perused the record.

3. The Respondent herein/complainant has filed the subject DVC No.8 of 2021 before the Court below, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “DVC Act”) seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 20, 21 of DVC Act and other reliefs. The petitioners herein, who are husband, his parents and his paternal uncle were arrayed as Respondents in the said DVC. In the said DVC, the petitioners herein filed the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. requesting the Court below to decide the issues mentioned therein as preliminary issues and dismiss the DVC. Alleging that the Court below is insisting the petitioners herein to proceed with the trial of the case without disposing of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 at the first instance, this Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to the Court below to dispose of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 before proceeding further in the subject DVC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the proceedings under the DVC Act are predominantly civil in nature, the Court below is required to decide the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 filed under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. at the first instance and then proceed further with the matter. The inaction on the part of the Court below in disposing of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 at the first instance is illegal and arbitrary. If the Preliminary Objection Petition is decided, the same will have bearing over the main DVC. If the Court below proceeds further with the matter without deciding the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022, the very purpose of filing the subject application would be defeated and ultimately prayed to direct the Court below to dispose of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 at the first instance before proceeding further with the subject DVC.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant strongly opposed the Civil Revision Petition. His first contention is that the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 filed before the Court below under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. is not maintainable. His second contention is that such a direction is to the Court below to dispose of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 at the first instance cannot be given by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file a writ petition seeking such a direction, that too under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Refuting the said submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent/complainant, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no writ petition can be moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India nor can a writ to be issued under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be called a writ petition and that this Court has got ample power of superintendence to direct the Court which is subordinate to it, to exercise the jurisdiction which vests with it. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 also a judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Arun Danial and others Vs. Suganya and others, Decided on 17.11.2022 in Crl.OP.SR.Nos.31852 of 2022 and batch

7. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the Respondent/complainant would submit th