AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 172 wordsC.S Dias, J
The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda, in E.A. No.89/2022 in E.P.No.326/2015 in O.S.No.534/2013.
On a perusal of Ext.P1 order, it is seen that it is an order passed under Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘Code’), declining to set aside the sale on the ground that the application was barred by limitation and there was no material irregularities in conducting the sale.
An order passed under Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(j) of the Code.
In the light of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the original petition by exercising the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, the original petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 order, in accordance with law, if any remedies available now.