JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri R.C.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.22,685.72. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2010. The appeal was also dismissed on 17.5.2013. The petitioner thereafter preferred second appeal and the same was dismissed as not maintainable in view of Section 102 C.P.C. Thus, the petition has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The right to appeal is a statutory right. Once the said right has been availed and the matter becomes conclusive between the parties, as no further appeal is provided, the same cannot be permitted to be re-opened by invoking writ jurisdiction. 3. The purpose of writ jurisdiction is to provide a remedy where there is none to undo injustice, but where the statutory remedy provided is availed and is exhausted the recourse to writ jurisdiction is limited and discretionary. 4. It is well-settled that in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction the Courts should not enter into academic issues or in realm of affairs which are petty and for correcting errors in the judgments unless it results in grave injustice. 5. It is a cardinal principle of law that there must be an end to litigation. Therefore, where a judgment of the Court below has been subjected to scrutiny in appeal there may not be any further judicial review of the same. If it is so permitted, it would mean that a party has unlimited right to keep agitating the matter until and unless it is decided in his favour. This cannot be the intention of law. 6. In Mahendra Singh v. Haqimuddin, 2008 (10) ADJ 182 , in similar situation, where the second appeal was not found to be maintainable in view of Section 102 C.P.C., I have refused permission to convert it into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for the reason that what is forbidden in law cannot be permitted by invoking extra ordinary remedy and that too in a petty matter involving dispute of not more than Rs. 25,000/-. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in order to set at rest the controversy and to end the litigation between the parties, I refrain myself from exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.