JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondents No. 1 to 7 have moved an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution to vacate the ad interim ex-parte stay order dated 29th May, 2009. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that this writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 17th March, 2009, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been dismissed, the said order is revisable under Section 115 C.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that order impugned in this writ petition is revisable but his submission is that this writ petition itself may be treated as revision petition and may be heard on merit. 4. It is relevant to mention that no application has been filed by the petitioner for converting or treating this writ petition as revision petition. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In view of above discussion, the writ petition itself is dismissed on the ground that petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of a revision petition to challenge the order, which is impugned in this writ petition. 6. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution and same also stands disposed of. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of liberty to file revision petition. It is needless to mention that it is the right of the petitioner to file revision petition against the impugned order, therefore, no liberty is required to be given.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******