Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—In all the petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Notice dated 15.10.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge below Exh. 237 and the petitioners have also challenged the Judgement and Order dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 91/97 and other consequential relief. 2. Heard Mr. Desai for the petitioners. The respondents are served, but nobody has appeared. 3. Upon hearing Mr. Desai for the petitioners, it appears that the Judgement and the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 29.09.2007 is in Regular Civil Suit No. 91/1997 against which the appeal came to be preferred under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is an admitted position that such remedy is not exhausted by the petitioners before filing the present petition. However, Mr. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings and therefore, the right of appeal will not be available to the petitioners under Section 96 of the CPC. 4. I am afraid such contention can be accepted, the reason being that if the petitioners feel that they are aggrieved by the Judgement and Decree of the Trial Court, in capacity as person aggrieved, they can prefer an appeal, more particularly, when based on the Judgement and Decree passed by the trial Court, the Notice has been issued on 15.10.2007 at Annexure-A by the learned Civil Judge to the concerned petitioners. Hence, since the petitioners have no exhausted the remedy of preferring an appeal, may be in the capacity of a person aggrieved, the present petition does not deserve to be entertained. 5. The Notice dated 15.10.2007 issued by the learned Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 91/1997 is not an independent cause of action, but is arising from the Judgement and Decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in the said Suit. Therefore, as observed earlier when the petitioners have the remedy of preferring an appeal against the Judgement and the Decree of the learned Civil Judge, any aspect arising therefrom can be agitated in the proceedings of the Appeal. 6. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioners also contended that now the appeal is barred and therefore, the petitioners would be remediless. 7. 6. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioners also contended that now the appeal is barred and therefore, the petitioners would be remediless. 7. It is hardly required to be stated that if the petitioners have prosecuted the remedy of the present proceedings, the application for condonation of delay can always be made before the appropriate forum which has power to entertain the same. 8. In view of the above, the petitions are not entertained as the petitioners have the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is clarified that the present order shall not operate as a bar to the petitioners in preferring an appeal and if such an appeal is preferred, the rights and contentions of both the sides as may be available in law shall remain open. 9. Rule discharged. I.R. vacated. No order as to costs.