##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1027 OF 2009

DATE: 25.03.2026

Between:

Castrol India Limited, Regd. Office at Technopolis Knowledge Park Mahakali Caves Road,

Chakala Andheri East Mumbai 400093, Rep., by its Accounts Executive

Mr. T Ramachandran.

...Petitioner AND

M/s. P.L.Reddy and (03) Others …Respondents

:: O R D E R ::

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the

order dated 26^th August, 2008 passed in I.A.No.24 of 2008 in O.S.No.27 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking restoration of

the suit came to be dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Bimal B. Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prabhu C.V., learned counsel for the respondents, appearing on behalf of M/s. Indus Law Firm.

The record has also been perused.

2

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Civil Revision Petition. It is contended that an order passed on an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC is not amendable to revision, inasmuch as a statutory appeal is provided. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on Order XLIII Rule 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. For clarity, the

relevant provision is extracted hereunder: “1. Appeal from orders. An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of

section 104, namely:-

(a)………. (b)……….

(c) an order under rule 9 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit;

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to sustain the revision petition and placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora1 and Firdous Omer (dead) by LRs., and Others v. Bankim Chandra

Daw (Dead) by LRs., and Others2

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

placed reliance upon the following decisions:

1 (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 359

2 (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 569

3

(i) Mohd. Ali v. V. Jaya and Other, Civil Appeal No.4114 of 2022 (ii) Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma v. Tuticorin

Educational Society and others4.

(iii) Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v.

Ameena Begum and another., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1662 Legal Position:

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virudhunagar’s case (supra) has categorically held that where proceedings arise under the CPC and a specific appellate remedy is provided, the High Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction under

Article 227, except in rare cases.

7. Similarly, in Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC is dismissed, the remedy lies by way of appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC, and not by way of revision under

Section 115 of the CPC.

Analysis:

8. A conjoint reading of the above provisions and

precedents makes it clear that:

(i) An order dismissing an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC is expressly appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1

(c) of the CPC;

4 (2019) 9 SCC 538

4

(ii) Where such an effective alternative remedy is available, invocation of revisional jurisdiction is impermissible;

(iii) The present Civil Revision Petition, therefore, is not maintainable.

Conclusion and Result:

9. In view of the above discussion and the settled legal position, this Court holds that the present Civil Revision petition is not maintainable, as the impugned order is

appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 (c) of the CPC.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the appropriate reme