ORDER S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 19.8.2003 passed by the trial/execution court in Execution Case No. 5 of 1991, Ram Narain Verma v. Ram Chandra Verma (Annexure-C to the writ petition).
2. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the said order dated 19.8.2003 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) was passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Jhansi in Execution Case No. 5 of 1991.
3. In further appears that against the said order dated 19.8.2003, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Along with the said revision, an application praying for staying further proceedings in Execution Case No. 5 of 1991 was also filed.
4. By the order dated 22.8.2003, the learned Incharge District Judge, Jhansi directed that notice be issued to the respondents in the revision for hearing on the question of admission of the revision, and fixed 6.9.2003 for hearing.
5. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition, inter-alia, praying for quashing the said order dated 19.8.2003, and further praying for passing order that the petitioner would not be dispossessed from the shop in question without adopting due process of law.
6. Shri O.P. Lohia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is reasonable apprehension that the petitioner would be evicted from the shop in question before 6.9.2003 fixed by the revisional court in the said revision and, therefore, this Court may interfere in this matter.
7. I have considered the submissions made by Shri O. P. Lohia, learned counsel for the petitioner, and I find myself unable to accept the same.
8. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the petitioner has already filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the said order dated 19.8.2003 passed in Execution Case No. 5 of 1991. As the petitioner is already pursuing an alternative remedy, there is no occasion for any interference in the matter under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the present case. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground. In this connection it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. and Ors., JT 1995 (1) SC 155, In this case their Lordships of the Apex Court held as follows (paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said Judgment Today) :
"12. The contention of the appellant in this appeal is that in the first place the writ petition should not have been entertained. The writ petitioner had an adequate alternative statutory remedy. The writ petitioner had in fact already taken advantage of alternative remedy provided by the Statute and had preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal. While the said appeal was pending the writ petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court praying more or less the same remedy as was prayed in the appeal.
13. We are of the view that the point taken by the appellant is of substance. This is a case, where there is not only the existence of an alternative remedy but the writ petitioner actually had availed of that remedy. The writ petitioner's appeal before Statutory Authority was pending. In that view of the matter this writ petition should not have been entertained."
9. As regards the apprehension of the petitioner that he would be evicted from the shop in question, I am of the opinion that no relief in this regard can be granted to the petitioner, as the petitioner has already filed revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as mentioned above. The petitioner has already filed stay application also in the said revision before the revisional court. It is for the revisional court to consider the prayer made by the petitioner in the said stay application and pass suitable orders having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of this, the prayer made by the petitioner for issuing direction staying the dispossession of the petitioner from the shop in question cannot be accepted in the present case. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for by him in the said stay application filed in the said revision, as it is for the revisional court to pass appropriate orders on the said application having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Shri Lohia then submits that the revisional court be directed to decide the said revision within a specified period.
11. I have considered the submission made by Shri Lohia. I am of the opinion that no direction in this regard is necessary, as I have no doubt that the revisional court will proceed to decide the revision expeditiously.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed.