Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The respondents No. 1 to 7 have moved an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution to vacate the ad interim ex-parte stay order dated 29th May, 2009. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that this writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 17th March, 2009, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been dismissed, the said order is revisable under Section 115 C.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that order impugned in this writ petition is revisable but his submission is that this writ petition itself may be treated as revision petition and may be heard on merit.;