1. Several questions of law arise for consideration in this revision laid under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short). What is the date of the decree for the purpose of the Order 21 Rule 22 CPC, when the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by default, thereby confirming the decree of the trial Court? Whether a revision u/s.115 CPC lies from an order passed in an execution application u/s.144 CPC? How should affixture of service of notice be effected and what is the effect of such an affixature? What is the subtle distinction between Section 115, CPC and Article 227, Indian Constitution? These are some of the questions, which arise for consideration in this revision.

2. The revision, however, runs in a narrow compass in respect of the facts. The petitioner is the defendant and the judgment debtor. The respondents are the decree holders/plaintiffs. The decree holders are wife and husband. The petitioner was a tenant of the E.P. schedule premises. The respondents, who are the decree holders, filed a suit for eviction, recovery of rent and mesne profits. O.S.No.5109 of 2004 on the file of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was decreed on 31.12.2007. The judgment debtor/petitioner was granted three months time to vacate the premises.

3. The judgment debtor preferred A.S.No.80 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Unfortunately, A.S.No.80 of 2008 was dismissed for default on 22.03.2010. The decree holders consequently filed E.P.No.64 of 2010 on 15.04.2010. The Execution Court deemed it appropriate to order notice under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC. The judgment debtor, however, did not receive the notice. The notice was merely affixed to the premises said to be the premises of the judgment debtor. Possession was delivered to the decree holders, through the proceedings in the execution petition. The judgment debtor claims that he has come to know of the same and that he consequently filed E.A.No.14 of 2011 under Sections 144 and 151 CPC for restitution. The execution Court dismissed E.A.No.14 of 2011 in E.P.No.64 of 2010 in A.S.No.80 of 2008 in O.S.No.5109 of 2004. Aggrieved by the orders in E.A.No.14 of 2011, the revision is laid.

4. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the decree holders raised preliminary objections. Inter alia, he contended that only an appeal would apply from an order u/s.144 CPC and not a revision. In the alternative, his contention is that after the amendment of CPC in 2002, a revision u/s.115 CPC would not be maintainable and a revision at best could be under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution only. He also raised a contention that Section 144 CPC could be invoked on the original side and not before the execution Court.

5. Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner countered every one of these contentions. His claim is that petition u/s.144 CPC is maintainable before the execution Court and that revision is maintainable u/s.115 CPC and in the alternative under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.

6. Section 115 CPC was drastically amended through the extensive amendments of 2002. In fact, in the extensive and exhaustive amendments to the CPC in 1977, sub-section (2) was incorporated. It is convenient to quote entire 115 CPC for clarity and further analysis. Section 115 reads:

“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—

1. to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

2. to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

3. 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 decid