Writ Petition No. 1839 of 2005 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s Memoranda of Coram, orders appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders ------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.S. Shah for petitioner. Mr. G.S. Godbole for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. 23/3/2007. P.C.: . Against the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, a statutory remedy of filing Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of C.P.C. is available and, therefore, a writ petition need not be entertained, as has been held by me in Writ Petition No. 4138 of 2006 decided on 24/8/2006. . Hence, the petition is disposed with liberty to file a Civil Revision Application and if such an application is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the period of pendency of this petition shall be taken into consideration for condonation of delay, if any. Annexures be returned, if applied for. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Aug 2006. The bench was B H MARLAPALLE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.