This is аn original proceeding in Mandamus initiated by Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Association, hereinafter referrеd to as petitioner, against the Superior Court of Maricopa County and Judge Thomas Tang, hereinafter refеrred to as the court.
On June 12, 1963 the petitioner as plaintiff filed a complaint consisting of six causes of action in thе Superior Court of Maricopa County against Arizona IXL Kitchens, Inc., and other defendants. The action was for the purpose of foreclosing a real estate mortgage executed by T & C Construction Company, Inc., and оthers, on certain real estate situated in Maricopa County to secure the payment of certain promissory notes executed by T & C Construction Company and others payable to petitioner.
Defendant IXL Kitchens filed an answer to the complaint. Thereafter petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment against defendant IXL Kitchens supported by a memorandum and affidavits upon the grounds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that petitioner is entitled to judgment of foreclosure. At the oral hearing on the motion petitioner appeared by counsel and defendant IXL Kitchens appeared by counsel. Defendant IXL Kitchens failеd to answer or respond to the motion for summary judgment as required by Rule of Civil Procedure, 56(e), 16 A.R.S. The court denied pеtitioner’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter petitioner sought a writ of mandamus from this Court to require the lower court to grant petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. We granted an alternative writ of mandamus and the question now presented is whеther petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus in this case.
Mandamus will issue to compel public officers, including judges оf inferior courts, to perform an act which the law
*327
specifically enjoins as a duty arising -out of the office providing there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. Rhodes v. Clark Dry Wall,
Proceedings of inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction in the exercise of the power confided in them cannot be revised or reviewed by mandamus. In State v. Phelps, supra, this Court said:
“It is not the province of the writ of mаndate to control the power of decision, which belongs to nisi prius courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction. This сourt has no power to legislate and to allow appeals where none are allowed by statute. It is for these reasons that mandamus may not be re-' . sorted to in lieu of an appeal.”67 Ariz. at 222 ,193 P.2d at 926 .
The petitioner in this case cites the case of Martinez v. Coombs,
This argument is without merit .for two important reasons. First it should be noted that in Martinez that cаse was before this Court on appeal by the plaintiff .after the lower court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Since that case was on appeal we considered the merits of the matter and determined as a matter of law that in thаt case summary judgment for the defendant was legally required and correct. We decided that the lower court in the exercise of its jurisdiction did not err. We did not nor could we by mandamus control the judicial act of the lower cоurt in the exercise of its jurisdiction in deciding the motion for summary judgment in that case or any case. *328 However, on aрpeal to the merits of such a matter we can correct an erroneous decision by the trial court оn a motion for summary judgment.
Second, it does not always follow that the mere failure of the opposing party to file controverting affidavits to a motion for summary judgment requires the granting of the motion for summary judgment. If the papers оf the moving party fail to show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party need not file аn opposing affidavit. Lujan v. MacMurtrie,
It should be noted that we have not examined the merits of the matter surrounding the denial of thе petitioner’s motion for summary judgment in this mandamus proceeding. To do so would warp or distort the remedy of mandamus in addition to creating in effect an appeal from a denial of a motion for a summary judgment which does not exist. Renck v. Superior Court of Maricopa County,
The alternative writ of mandamus is quashed.