JUDGMENT Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - The appellant appearing in person has questioned the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5799 of 2006 whereby writ petition filed by him was dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell, are that, the appellant filed a civil suit for vacant possession of disputed property therein along with arrears of rent, which was decreed in his favour partly. Against which, he preferred first appeal and in first appeal, decree of possession along with mesne profit has been granted in his favour. Arising out of judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court, several other proceedings were initiated and after conclusion of miscellaneous civil case and other proceedings, ultimately, second appeal was also decided affirming the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court. 3. The appellant/petitioner has filed writ petition by pleading the facts of earlier cases and the manner, in which, earlier proceedings have been taken place, seeking following reliefs: ^^71 ?kks"k.kk fd;k tkos fd mRrjoknhx.k dks ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo:} yk;k x;k fofo/k okn] fofo/k vihy ,oa f}rh; vihy mRrjoknhx.k }kjk fcuk fdlh vf/kdkfjrk ds QkYl 72 ?kks"k.kk fd;k tkos fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dks fMdh;ka ds fu"iknu dk vf/kdkj gSA 73 ?kks"k.kk fd;k tkos fd lu~ 1997 ls dCtk izkIr djus dh vof/k rd ;kfpdkdrkZ ds Hkwfe ij isVªksafy;e inkFkZ ds fod; ds vk/kkj ij Hkkjr isVªksfy;e }kjk Lohdr deh'ku vkfn dks ;kfpdkdrkZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 74 ;g fd mRrjoknhx.k ls iwNk tkos fd U;k;ky; es tek fd;s x;s jde gSa dgka ls vk;k iw.kZ fooj.k ns mldk Lkzksr ogka ls rFkk d0 }kjk Hkqxrku dc fd;k x;k iw.kZ fooj.k nsA rFkk 5000@& #0 cSd Mk¶V fdlds }kjk cuok;k x;k Fkk bl lc/k es iw.kZ fooj.k nsA^^ 4. Perusal of reliefs sought for by the appellant in writ petition shows that appellant has sought relief for declaring the proceedings of miscellaneous civil case, miscellaneous civil appeal and second appeal against the appellant to be filed without any authority; declare that the appellant is having right to execute the decree and further declare that the appellant is entitled to receive commission on the sale of petroleum products since 1997 till he acquired the possession of property in dispute in civil proceedings and one other in a question form. 5. 5. Learned Single Judge while considering the facts of the case, dismissed the writ petition recording that no relief as sought by the petitioner in writ petition can be granted to him and for executing any decree, in his favour no further order/direction for his entitlement to execute the same is required. 6. Submission of appellant is that learned Single Judge decided the writ petition without considering the amendment application pending consideration of relief clause. He further submits that learned Single Judge has not considered that respondent No.1 while projecting himself as Principal Officer has committed fraud in proceedings of miscellaneous case, and further that respondent in collusion with the dealer of petrol pump, was doing sale of petroleum products over land in dispute without bringing it to the knowledge of company and distributing commission. He also submits that learned Single Judge was having knowledge of distribution of commission from the business of sale of petroleum products over the land, subject matter of civil dispute (civil litigation). He also submits that the learned Single Judge ought not to have heard and decided the writ petition and in view of above submission, he prays that impugned order should be interdicted. 7. We have heard the appellant in person and perused the record carefully. 8. The appellant has not argued that he has brought to the notice of the Court of the fact of pendency of an application for amendment and he wants to press the said application or he has made a prayer that this writ petition may be an exception to that Court. 9. As the appellant has not brought to the notice of the Court that the writ petition may be an exception to the learned Bench for any of the reasons, therefore, at this stage, appellant cannot be permitted to raise such an argument after getting his petition dismissed. In fact, the conduct of appellant in raising such argument in appeal is deprecated. 10. We have perused the application for amendment filed by the appellant along with appeal as Annexure-3, in which, he only sought to amend the relief clause, particularly the words '' ?kks"k.kk fd;k tko '' is sought to be substituted with '' ijekns'k tkjh fd;k tkos ''. 10. We have perused the application for amendment filed by the appellant along with appeal as Annexure-3, in which, he only sought to amend the relief clause, particularly the words '' ?kks"k.kk fd;k tko '' is sought to be substituted with '' ijekns'k tkjh fd;k tkos ''. The amendment is not with regard to amendment in the facts or grounds of the writ petition and looking to the pleadings and reliefs sought for, even otherwise, it does not go to the root of the case or could have in any way changed the consideration of facts and could have affected the decision. 11. The learned Single Judge has not dismissed the writ petition only on the count of declaratory relief sought for by the appellant in relief clause of the writ petition, but learned Single Judge has considered the pleadings and decided the writ petition on its own merits. 12. The learned Single Judge has assigned the reasons for dismissing the writ petition by recording the said findings : ''5. On the face of it, the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted in these proceedings. Whether or not, respondents were entitled to file applications could be heard only in those proceedings and not by separate writ petition. Moreover, relief sought by the appellant in this case is directly in teeth of order dated 11.05.2005 passed in MA No. 855 of 2002. In that case, while remanding the case to the learned Lower Appellate Court, this court recorded finding in para-27 of its order that under the provisions of law, not only the power of attorney holder but also the principal officer of the corporation were permitted to verify and sign the pleading and B. Krishna Murthy, who signed the application, was the Territory Manager of the office established at Bhilai by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited and this fact has not been disputed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, B. Krishna Murthy had power to sign the application even without power of attorney and at the most, that was required by the corporation to rectify the said action. 6. The declaratory relief sought by the appellant is that it be declared that the appellant is entitled to execute the decree. It goes without saying that if the appellant is holding a decree in his favour, he is entitled to execute the same in accordance with law. 6. The declaratory relief sought by the appellant is that it be declared that the appellant is entitled to execute the decree. It goes without saying that if the appellant is holding a decree in his favour, he is entitled to execute the same in accordance with law. This Court finds that the judgment and decree passed in his favour on 21.12.2005 by the learned Lower Appellate Court was affirmed by this Court vide its judgment dated 07.08.2007 passed in Second Appeal No. 16 of 2006. There is no specific material on record to show that any order, thereafter, has been passed by any courts where the appellant has been declared not entitled to execute the decree passed in his favour. 7. Another declaratory relief sought by the petitioner is essentially a matter of recovery of money of certain claims which would require evidence and it cannot be gone into in writ petition. If the petitioner has certain claims towards payment of commission to him by respondent, he is at liberty to file suit for recovery. 8. The relief sought that respondents should disclose the source of fund is liable to be rejected at the threshold because this has nothing to do with the other reliefs sought in the petition.'' 13. From perusal of aforementioned findings recorded and reasoning assigned by learned Single Judge, would clearly show that learned Single Judge has dealt with all the issues raised by appellant in writ petition on merits and has also assigned reasons for not granting relief to appellant in writ petition. 14. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has considered the issue whether the same issue which was considered by the High Court in one of the mode of proceedings provided under law can again be challenged by filing different nature of case before High Court in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, 1969 (2) SCC 74 and held thus :- 6. Now when the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is done because it is a superior court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the court below. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the Statute; basically and fundamentally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense. We do not, therefore, consider that the principle of merger of orders of inferior Courts in those of superior Courts would be affected or would become inapplicable by making a distinction between a petition for revision and an appeal. 7. It may be useful to refer to certain other decisions which by analogy can be of some assistance in deciding the point before us. In U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay [AIR (1955) SC 633] , the principal of merger was considered with reference to Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code which confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court. In the majority judgment it was held, inter alia, that a judgment pronounced by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction after issue of a notice and a full hearing, in the presence of both the parties would replace the judgment of the lower court thus constituting the judgment of the High Court-the only final judgment to be executed in accordance with law by the Court below. In Chandi Prasad Chokhani v. The State of Bihar [ 1962 (2) SCR 276 ] , it was said that save in exceptional and special circumstances this Court would not exercise its power under Article 136 in such a way as to bypass the High Court and ignore the latter''s decision which had become final and binding by entertaining an appeal directly from orders of a Tribunal. Such exercise of power would be particularly inadvisable in a case where the result might lead to a conflict of decisions of two courts of competent jurisdiction. In our opinion the course which was followed by the High Court, in the present case, is certainly one which leads to a conflict of decisions of the same court. 8. Such exercise of power would be particularly inadvisable in a case where the result might lead to a conflict of decisions of two courts of competent jurisdiction. In our opinion the course which was followed by the High Court, in the present case, is certainly one which leads to a conflict of decisions of the same court. 8. Even on the assumption that the order of the appellate court had not merged in the order of the single Judge who had disposed of the revision petition we are of the view that a writ petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court when the respondent had already chosen the remedy under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If there are two modes of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court and one of those modes has been chosen and exhausted it would not be a proper and sound exercise of discretion to grant relief in the other set of proceedings in respect of the same order of the subordinate court. The refusal to grant relief in such circumstances would be in consonance with the anxiety of the court to prevent abuse of process as also to respect and accord finality to its own decisions. 15. So far as the relief sought for by the appellant in writ petition in relief clause-7.1 is concerned, no writ can be issued against civil proceedings i.e. decree passed in second appeal or order passed in Misc. Appeal, but the same could have been challenged by way of filing further appeals or petitions challenging that particular order/judgment or decree. Even no writ can be issued for entitling the appellant to execute any decree in his favour because there are specific provisions under the law enabling the decree holder to file an application for execution of judgment and decree passed in his favour. One of the reliefs sought for is of money claim, which also could not be granted to the appellant as it has to be decided only after recording evidence of respective parties and can only be decided in a civil suit to be filed before the competent civil Court. 16. One of the reliefs sought for is of money claim, which also could not be granted to the appellant as it has to be decided only after recording evidence of respective parties and can only be decided in a civil suit to be filed before the competent civil Court. 16. In the case of Mohan Pandey and Another v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt) and Others, (1992) 4 SCC 61 the Hon''ble Supreme Court has considered the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when the remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available to the litigants and held thus :- ''6 The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was in error in issuing the impugned direction against the appellants by their judgment under appeal. '' 17. In view of the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the case are considered, the issue raised by the appellant in writ petition that Misc. Case, Miscellaneous Appeal, and Second Appeal was brought against the petitioner is without any authority, was already considered and decided by the High Court, of course under different jurisdiction, then the appellant cannot be permitted to again raise before High Court which was already decided by it. There has to be some finality to the proceeding. 18. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity or error in the reasoning and rationale given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition. The appeal being devoid of any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.