DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge dated 31st May, 2010, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') and upheld the order of the learned trial Court dated 14.09.2009, whereby the learned trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and the plaint was returned for filing before the appropriate forum.

(2.) There is no manner of doubt that no further appeal lies against such an order. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

"115.Revision.-[(1)] The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears-- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: [Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.]

[(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.]

[(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.]

[Explanation.--In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding.] It is more than apparent that if any Court subordinate to the High Court fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, then this Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction vested in it under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The main grievance of the plaintiffs-petitioners is that the courts below have wrongly held that they had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Therefore, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is one of filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(4.) When an alternative and efficacious remedy under ordinary law is available to the petitioners, then normally this Court would not exercise its constitutional jurisdiction. Th

erefore, the petition is rejected with liberty reserved to the petitioners to file a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is made clear that the time spent in pursuing the present petition shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation in filing the revision petition.