ORDER Writ Petition No. 2883 of 2001 (M/S) This writ petition is restored today vide separate order passed in MCC No. 351 of 2008. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being taken up today for consideration. 3. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the orders dated 09.02.2000, 01.03.2000, and 03.04.2000 passed by Additional District Judge (U.M.C.), Dehradun. 4. To clearly appreciate the issues involved for consideration and to understand the complexity of the points which would fall for consideration and adjudication in the petition, it is desirable that some important and relevant facts and some salient features of the case are noticed. 5. Respondent no. 4 Raj Chopra purchased land measuring 24.37 acres for Rs. 6,00,000/- on 27.04.1989. The petitioner herein filed Civil Suit No. 302 of 1989 against respondent no. 4 and others with respect to the aforesaid sale transaction on some grounds, which he thought were available to him in law. Because of the filing of the aforesaid Civil Suit by the petitioner and apprehending his own dispossession, etc. or the passing of any adverse order against him, respondent no. 4 filed Civil Suit No. 689 of 1989 against the petitioner praying for certain reliefs available to him under law. 6. In both the aforesaid suits, both the plaintiffs filed Temporary Injunction Applications. The Trial Court vide order dated 20.02.1990 disposed of the Temporary Injunction Applications filed by the plaintiffs in both the aforesaid suits. Whereas Temporary Injunction Application filed by respondent no. 4 was allowed in his suit, the Temporary Injunction Application filed by the petitioner in his suit was dismissed. 7. It appears that the parties started parleys for compromise and based on an agreement arrived at between themselves, they filed in the Court jointly signed by the parties as well as their counsel, an application for compromise and settlement. Accordingly, the aforesaid two suits were disposed of as compromised. 8. On 06.03.1990, compromise decree was passed in the suit filed by respondent no. 4 and on 05.03.1990, compromise decree was passed in the suit filed by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the aforesaid two suits were disposed of as compromised. 8. On 06.03.1990, compromise decree was passed in the suit filed by respondent no. 4 and on 05.03.1990, compromise decree was passed in the suit filed by the petitioner. 9. Despite the fact that the aforesaid compromise decrees were passed, based upon the agreement earlier having been arrived at between the parties, the documents of compromise duly signed by the parties and their counsel, the petitioner filed a Review Application in the trial Court on 28.03.1990 with respect to and against the aforesaid compromise decrees passed by the trial Court in the aforesaid two suits. This review application was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.05.1990. 10. Against the order dismissing his Review Application whereby the petitioner felt aggrieved, he first filed Civil Revision Petition (challenging the order dated 03.05.1990) in Allahabad High Court, which was later transferred to this Court and re-numbered as Civil Revision No. 436 of 2001. This Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution on 27.09.2002. 11. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, despite having filed the aforesaid Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner also filed an appeal against the order dated 03.05.1990 in Allahabad High Court in the year 1992. This appeal remained pending in Allahabad High Court for sometime. Due to change in pecuniary jurisdiction, this appeal was transferred to the Additional District Judge by Allahabad High Court. 12. Now begins a saga of important development leading directly to the filing of the present writ petition. 13. The appeal pending before the Additional District Judge filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.05.1990 and transferred to the Court by order of the Allahabad High Court was dismissed for default of appearance by the Additional District Judge on 09.02.2000. The petitioner filed a restoration application for restoration of this appeal on 14.02.2000. The restoration application, however, was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 01.03.2000. On 31.03.2000, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the restoration application, which was dismissed by a speaking order passed on the merits of the case by the learned Addition District judge on 03.04.2000. 14. It is in the aforesaid background that the aforesaid three orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this Court in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Mr. 14. It is in the aforesaid background that the aforesaid three orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this Court in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Mr. V.K. Jhangi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submitted that apart from the fact that the petitioner has been careless and negligent in prosecuting the matter from the very beginning, the writ petition filed under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the aforesaid three orders is not maintainable because in view of the clear provision contained in Order 43 Rule 1 (t) C.P.C., an appeal against an order of refusal passed under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C., to re-admit an appeal is maintainable. Indeed, I have gone through he scheme of Order 41 Rules 16(2), 17 and 19 C.P.C. and find that where an appeal is dismissed under Rule 17(2), the appellant has a right to apply for re-admission of the appeal and it is the discretion of the appellate Court either to re-admit the appeal or reject the application for re-admission. An order rejecting the application for re-admission, undoubtedly, is appealable U/s 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(t) C.P.C. as noticed above. 16. I do tend to agree with the basic preliminary objection of Mr. Jhangi that in view of the aforesaid clear provision regarding the filing of the appeal, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable because the petitioners had an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal. 17. On this being pointed out, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, showed to me some papers, which, according to him show that the petitioner having filed an appeal under Order 43 C.P.C., was returned the same by the Allahabad High Court. I have indeed seen an endorsement on the said alleged original file and find that some ministerial staff in the Registry of Allahabad High Court did made an endorsement that the appeal, as presented, was not maintainable. First and foremost, I do not understand how can such an endorsement be made and why did the petitioner submit to such an endorsement without exhausting his remedy of insisting upon this appeal being taken up for consideration by the Bench on the judicial side. First and foremost, I do not understand how can such an endorsement be made and why did the petitioner submit to such an endorsement without exhausting his remedy of insisting upon this appeal being taken up for consideration by the Bench on the judicial side. I am also not aware as to under what circumstances, such an endorsement was made because the petitioner on affidavit in this Court has not disclosed the aforesaid fact. I also can not take any judicial notice of any fact about the aforesaid papers in the absence of any authentic document. 18. Apart from the non-maintainability of the writ petition, I do find, upon a careful perusal of the aforesaid orders and various other orders passed in this case from time to time that in the learned Court below, the petitioner indeed was grossly negligent as well as careless in prosecuting his matter and it was for this reason that the learned Court below exercised jurisdiction vesting in it by a proper application of mind and passed the aforesaid impugned orders which I am convinced do not need any interference by this Court. 19. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed.