JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - Sri Amrendra Pratap Saxena, the Petitioner, is a practising lawyer at Agra. He is a tenant of premises bearing municipal No. 2/30 in Swadeshi Bima Nagar, Agra. Sri Sukhnandan Gupta is the owner landlord of this accommodation. 2. On August 24, 1971, Sukhnandan Gupta filed Suit No. 652 of 1971 in the Court of Munsif, Agra against Saxena. He claimed recovery of certain amount by way of arrears of rent and also? sought ejectment of Saxena. On January 6, 1973 this suit was transferred for trial to the Court of the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra in view of the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act No. 37 of 1972. On April 19, 1973 Saxena made an application (19 C) seeking a month's time for depositing the necessary amounts and for filing written statement. This application was directed to be taken up for orders the next day. April 20, 1973 was a Sunday so that the application was not taken up on that day. On April 21. 1973 written statement was filed by Saxena in which he gave his own version of the case and pleaded that nothing was due from him to the Plaintiff. As such, he was not depositing any amount. Instead, he claimed that he had made some excess payment to the Plaintiff which deserved to be adjusted. Also, that there was no agreed rent between the parties. After a few postponements, on September 28, 1973 the case is said to have been left undated for a period of two months. On November 17, 1973, on an application made by the Plaintiff for fixing a date, January 24, 1974 was fixed for hearing. According to the case of Saxena, this date was fixed for disposal of the application made by the Plaintiff for expeditious hearing of the suit. However, on January 24, 1974 the detente of Saxena was struck off under Rule 5 of Order 15 CPC and the suit itself was decreed ex-parte against him. On February 5, 1974, he made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and on February 7, 1974, that is, two days later, fresh security for the amount for which a decree had been passed against him was filed by Saxena. 3. On April 13, 1974, the application which he had made Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was rejected. 3. On April 13, 1974, the application which he had made Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was rejected. A revision against this Order u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act preferred by Saxena was also dismissed on April 19, 1976. In fact, there were two revisions, one against the ex-parte decree and the other against the order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree. Against both these orders two revisions u/s 115 CPC were filed by Saxena in this Court. They were numbered as Civil Revision Nos. 921 and 930 of 1976. These revisions came up for hearing before K.C. Agrawal, J. who dismissed them on January 23, 1979. The judgment was common to both the cases. Saxena filed two applications for review of this judgment. One review application was filed on February 22, 1979. It was rejected by the learned Judge by order dated December 17, 1979, without issue of notice to the other side, on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying recall of the order dated January 23, 1979. The other review application was filed on March 26. 1979. It was accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. This application came up before the learned Judge on March 5, 1981. It was dismissed on two grounds, first, that the revision itself was not competent, against an order of the Additional District Judge made u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, in this Court u/s 115 CPC and. Second that the delay in filing of the revision application had not been satisfactorily explained. Thereafter, on March 17, 1981, the present: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by Saxena in this Court assailing the orders passed u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the Additional District Judge. 4. Sri A. Hajela, appearing for the Petitioner Amrendra Pratap Saxena, urged that in the circumstances of the instant case, the trial Judge was in error in striking off the defence of Saxena Under Rule 5 of Order 15 CPC and also that the ex-parte decree passed in the suit was not sustainable. 4. Sri A. Hajela, appearing for the Petitioner Amrendra Pratap Saxena, urged that in the circumstances of the instant case, the trial Judge was in error in striking off the defence of Saxena Under Rule 5 of Order 15 CPC and also that the ex-parte decree passed in the suit was not sustainable. The submission also is that, in any case, interest of justice required that the suit be directed to be tried on merits after taking the defence of Saxena into account and permitting him opportunity to lead evidence. 5. Sri Swami Dayal has appeared on behalf of Sukh Nandan Gupta. One of the submissions made by him is that, inasmuch as, this Court had dealt with the grievance of Saxena on its merits in the to revisions that had been filed u/s 115 CPC this Court should not entertain a second challenge to the merits of the two orders passed by the Additional District Judge in its jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1 . In that decision, the Supreme Court said that once a Petitioner bad invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 115 CPC unsuccessfully he should not be permitted to invoke it again Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 6. In Abhayankar's case the Petitioner had two options. One to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 115 CPC or, else, invoke it Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court took the view that the order passed by the High Court u/s 115 CPC was the ultimate Order, inasmuch as, the order of the subordinate Court merged in it. The order u/s 115 CPC was the order of the High Court. It could not be permitted to be set aside by the same Court in a different set of proceedings Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further said that even on the assumption that the order of the lore appellate Court had not merged m the order passed by the High Court u/s 115 CPC it would not be a proper and sound exercise of discretion to grant relief to the Petitioner in the other set of proceedings in respect of the same order of the subordinate Court. 7. 7. Sri Hajela has argued that in the present case the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Abhayankar's case was wholly inapplicable, inasmuch as, the order which this Court passed u/s 115 Code of CPC was an order wholly beyond jurisdiction. The precise submission is that the view of this Court in Jupitar Chit Fund (Pvt) Ltd. v. Uwarka Diesh Dayai 1979 AWC 731 FB that no revision lay to this Court u/s 115 CPC against an order passed by the District Judge u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act had been affirmed by the Supreme Court itself. As such, the order of this Court dated January 23, 1979 could not be said to preclude Saxena trom approaching this Court afresh Under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sri Hajela placed reliance upon a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and ot this Court, apart from a decision each of the Kerala and Calcutta High Courts, in support of the various facts of his submission in this regard. Those decisions are reported in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad 1980 AWC 263 , Smt. Satya Vs. Shri Teja Singh, AIR 1975 SC 105 ; Kiran Singh v. Chatnan Pas wan AIR 1954 SC 340 J; Kali Charan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1976 AWC 536 ; Bhuie v. Pir Bux 1973 AWR 279 ; Panthalakunnummal Pokkutty's daughter Kunheema Umma and Others Vs. Puthalath Balakrishnan Nair, AIR 1967 Ker 97 and Gora Chand Haldar and Another Vs. Prafulla Kumar Roy and Others, AIR 1925 Cal 907 . In substance, these decisions lay down that in case an order is wholly without jurisdiction it does not amount to res-judicata in any subsequent htigauon between the parties nor can it be said to bind the parties to that decision. It can be challenged at any stage including execution proceedings. 8.The real question which is to be determined in the present case is, however, slightly different. And, the question is whether a person who has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 115 CPC and .those claim has been negatived on merits by this Court in those proceedings, should be permitted to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 220 of the Constitution on the ground that the earlier decision of this Court was without jurisdiction. One of the settled principles for exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution is that a party which invokes the jurisdiction of a Court or authority or, in any case, acquiesces in it, should not be permitted to assail the decision, after it has gone against him on merits, in another set of proceedings by this Court. After all, the jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable in nature. It should not be permitted to be invoiced by a person, who seeks its help in another set of proceedings on the assumption that this Court has jurisdiction in the matter and fails, on the ground that the earlier proceedings were without jurisdiction. 9. It has been strenuously contended by Sri Hajela that at the time when this Court decided this matter u/s 115 CPC albeit on merits, the Full Bench declaration that no revision lay u/s 115 CPC was not available the decision of the Full Bench having been given on May 3, 1979. The Petitioner could not, thus, be said to have voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 115 CPC even though no revision under that provision lay against the orders passed by the Additional District Judge. It may be so. However, the Petitioner had, on his own showing, sought review of the order by filing two separate review applications. In none of them not even in the review application which was filed on March 26, it appears to have been urged on his behalf that he had taken recourse to the proceedings u/s 115 CPC under some mis- Conception. In any case, the fact remains that this Court, as invited by the Petitioner himself, went into the matter on merits in the two revisions filed u/s 115 CPC and declined to give relief to the Petitioner. It will not be a sound exercise of discretion Under Article 226 of the Constitution now to permit him to assail the correctness of the orders passed by the Additional District Judge on April 19, 1976, which have been affirmed by this Court on January 23, 1979, on merits in the present proceedings. 10. In conclusion, it must be held that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs.