A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, Andhra Pradesh State road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) obtained a Rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the order dated 2-4-1996 made in E. P. No. 279 of 1995 in o. P. No. 113 of 1982 on the file of ii Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada (now designated as Senior Civil Judge ). ( 2 ) THE relevant facts shorn of details, which are relevant for disposal for writ petition, are as under: an extent of Ac. 1. 84 cts of land in sy. No. 715/1 of Pithapuram Village was the subject matter of acquisition under the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) in which an award was passed by the Land acquisition Officer fixing the compensation at Rs. 10/- per square yard and Rs. 97,930/- towards buildings and Rs. 740/- per trees. The claimants being not satisfied with the said award sought reference under Sec. 18 of the Act in O. P. No. 113 of 1982 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. The Civil Court enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at Rs. 40/- per square yard and fixed the value of the buildings at Rs. 1,70,300/- and value of the trees at Rs. 2,850/ -. Dissatisfied with the said enhancement claimants further carried the matter in appeal - A. S. No. 1970 of 1985 and the same was disposed of confirming the enhancement but, however, ordered that claimants are declared to be entitled to the benefits under Sec. 23 (1-A) of Act 68/1984. On disposal of appeal claimants filed e. P. No. 279 of 1995 for due recovery of the amount after adjusting the amounts already deposited and the said E. P. was ordered basing upon the calculation memo filed by the land owners/respondents. Objecting to the calculation memo and ordering E. P. Petitioner filed E. A. No. 424 of 199 in e. P. No. 279 of 1995 to permit the corporation to come on record as 2nd respondent- JDR to prove the true and correct calculation of E. P. claim. Objecting to the calculation memo and ordering E. P. Petitioner filed E. A. No. 424 of 199 in e. P. No. 279 of 1995 to permit the corporation to come on record as 2nd respondent- JDR to prove the true and correct calculation of E. P. claim. The executing Court by a reasoned order dated 20-8-1998 dismissed the E. A. holding that the Order XXI Rule 10 CPC has no application to the petitioner and the execution Court cannot go beyond the scope and nature of the decree. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed C. R. P. No. 3894 of 1997 and the same was dismissed by the honourable the Chief Justice-S. B. Sinha (as he then was) holding that the petitioner cannot be impleaded at the belated stage to stall the execution of the decree. In view of dismissal of CRP, petitioner resorted to file this writ petition though it has a remedy of appeal against the dismissal of revision to the Supreme Court again to stall the execution proceedings and to quash the order passed in E. P. No. 279 of 1995. ( 3 ) THE Supreme Court in a. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and others1 categorically held that Article 226 is not meant to bypass the remedy available under CPC to a party. ( 4 ) THE effect of entertaining the writ petition bypassing the appeal remedy available to the petitioner will certainly nullify the order passed by this Court in exercise oi revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 cpc. When there are two modes for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court to question the correctness of the order passed in E. P. and the petitioner did invoke one of those modes, namely seeking permission to implead in the E. P. to question the correctness of the order passed in the E. P. and on dismissal of E. A. it carried the matter in revision before the High Court and chosen to exhaust the remedy. On dismissal of the revision the order in E. P. has become final and again invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution is nothing but abuse of process and is not a sound exercise of discretion by the High Court to grant relief to the petitioner. On dismissal of the revision the order in E. P. has become final and again invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution is nothing but abuse of process and is not a sound exercise of discretion by the High Court to grant relief to the petitioner. This Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution has to respect and accord finality to its earlier decision passed in revision as held by the Apex Court to shankar Ramchandra Abhayankar v. krishnaji Dattatreya Bapaf2. ( 5 ) THE submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ordering E. P. is contrary to the judgment of this Court and the same is liable to be set aside cannot be countenanced, since this Court need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the ordering E. P. , once the petitioner s EA questioning the E. P. was dismissed which was affirmed by this Court in revision. ( 6 ) FOR the reason aforementioned, the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal against the order passed in revision before the Supreme Court, if it is so advised. No costs.