JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Rayees Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gram Nyayalay, Tulsipur, Balrampur wherein he has allowed the suit preferred by respondent no. 3 seeking permanent injunction against petitioner, who was respondent no. 2 in the said suit. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is owner and in possession over Gata No. 1589/0.06 dismil in which he has constructed a house, while respondent no. 3 is owner of Gata No. 1590/2.23 acres, situated at Village - Gulahariya Hisampur, Pargana and Tehsil - Tulsipur, District - Balrampur. Both the plots are adjacent to each other and in the suit preferred by respondent no. 3 it was alleged that petitioner has encroached upon the land of respondent no. 3/plaintiff illegally and consequently relief of permanent injunction was sought. Respondent no. 2/petitioner herein appeared before the Gram Nyayalay and participated in the suit proceedings. After examining the contentions as well as evidence on record the suit was allowed by means of impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2024. 4. Preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents stating that against the impugned judgment passed under the Gram Nyayalay Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2008") the said judgment is appellable before the district Courts as per Section 34 of the Act, 2008. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the said preliminary objection stating that in the present mater valuation of suit was less then Rs.1000/- and as per sub- section (b) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008 an appeal does not lie where the valuation of the suit does not exceed Rs.1000/- and consequently, the petitioner does not have any other remedy except for filing writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The primary issue raised by the respondents is with regard to availability of alternate remedy of appeal to the petitioner who is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2024. For the sake of convenience Section 34 of the Act, 2008 is quoted herein below :- "34. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The primary issue raised by the respondents is with regard to availability of alternate remedy of appeal to the petitioner who is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2024. For the sake of convenience Section 34 of the Act, 2008 is quoted herein below :- "34. Appeal in civil cases.- (1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law, and subject to sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Gram Nyayalaya to the District Court. (2) No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order passed by the Gram Nyayalaya- (a) with the consent of the parties; (b) where the amount or value of the subject matter of a suit, claim or dispute does not exceed rupees one thousand; (c) except on a question of law, where the amount or value of the subject matter of such suit, claim or dispute does not exceed rupees five thousand. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Gram Nyayalaya: Provided that the District Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period. (4) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard and disposed of by the District Court within six months from the date of filing of the appeal. (5) The District Judge may, pending disposal of the appeal, stay execution of the judgment or order appealed against. (6) The decision of the District Court under sub-section (4) shall be final and no appeal or revision shall lie from the decision of the District Court: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall preclude any person from availing of the judicial remedies available under articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution." 8. (6) The decision of the District Court under sub-section (4) shall be final and no appeal or revision shall lie from the decision of the District Court: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall preclude any person from availing of the judicial remedies available under articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution." 8. No doubt sub-section (b) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008 no appeal will lie where valuation of suit does not exceed Rs.1000/-, but according to sub-section (c) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008 it is provided that where question of law arises for consideration and valuation of suit does not exceed Rs.5000/-then an appeal would be maintainable. 9. It is noticed that sub-section (c) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008 starts with the word "except" and therefore it can safely be assumed that sub-section (c) is in the nature of exception to sub-section (b) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008 which bars filing of appeal in case where valuation of the suit is less then Rs.1000/-. 10. In the present case one of the ground taken by the petitioner to oppose the suit was that on the previous occasion where cause of action was similar, the said suit was dismissed and the said dismissal of the suit acted as re-judicata in the present suit proceedings. There were other grounds also taken by the petitioner to oppose the said suit. All the grounds are not considered presently while deciding the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition and also considering whether the petitioner has alternate remedy of appeal. 11. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of res-judicata and has submitted that the Gram Nyayalay has wrongly decided the said issue and in fact the suit proceedings were barred by the principle of res-judicata. The petitioner also does not dispute the fact that this question if raised would be a question of law in the appellate proceedings and in the light of above submissions there is no doubt that case of the petitioner would fall under sub-section (c) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008 and where valuation of the sit does not exceed Rs.5000/- and question of law arises for determination then certainly appeal can be preferred against the order of Gram Nyayalay under sub-section (c) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008. 12. 12. In the light of above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy of appeal under sub-section (c) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008 and since the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy against the impugned judgment this Court would not entertain the present writ petition against the order of Gram Nyayalay, in the peculiar facts of the present case. 13. In the light of above, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is sustained. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy under sub-section (b) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008.