High Court Of Calcutta
Rabin Bhattacharyya
PANCHANAN KARMAKAR - Appellant
Versus
ANANDAMOY KARMAKAR - Respondent
C. O. 2831 Of 1991
Decided On : 05/19/1995
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 115A - REVISION - FINALITY OF ORDER - ORDER PASSED BY DISTRICT COURT UNDER SECTION 115A IS FINAL AND NO FURTHER REVISION LIES TO THE HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the order of the District Court, which had set aside the order of the Munsiff Court allowing a petition for local investigation of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the order passed by the District Court under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was final and no further revision lay to the High Court.
Issues: Whether the High Court has the power to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by the District Court under Section 115A of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the introduction of Section 115A in the CPC by the State Amendment is an insurmountable barrier for an aggrieved to explore relief once backed by the provisions of the section 115A. The Court further held that Section 115A(4) of the CPC clearly operates as a bar to such recourse.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the contentions of the opposite parties.
( 1 ) THIS Civil revision is directed against Order, No. 13 dated 29. 5. 91 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Midnapore in Civil Revision No. 58 of 1990. The revision preferred before the learned Court below erupted from an order passed by the learned Munsiff 3rd Court Midnapore in Title Suit No. 57 of 1990 where the learned Munsiff by his Order No. 39 dated 31. 5. 90 allowed a petition for local investigation of the suit property on the strength of an application preferred by the defendants or the opposite parties which has now become the all sore in the lis.
( 2 ) THE learned Court of revision of first instance in exercise if his power under section 115a of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 struck down the order of the learned Munsiff when this revision before this Court challenging the propriety and legality of the order impugned.
( 3 ) WITHOUT entering into unnecessary details, the matter can be disposed of only on the legal premises.
( 4 ) IN revision, factual determination of the case is impermissible and only in the rarest of rare cases, the fact can be brought into play provided the application of mind of the Court is not adhered to and grave error and illegality committed. In the above perspective, Court of revision may invoke its jurisdiction that the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion grave justice.
( 5 ) IN the background of the established principal of law, I now advert to examine the tenability of the revision before this Court.
( 6 ) IT is worthy to note that Section 115 has suffered a local amendment where incorporation of section 115a in the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of State Amendment has conferred power on the District Court to entertain revisional application which may be exercised by the High Court under section 115. Thus, by introduction of 115a, a co-ordinate jurisdiction is created by the State Amendment clothing the District Court to exercise identical power in revision which can be exercised by the High Court within the realm of section 115 C. P. C. It is undisputed that a revision had been preferred before the District Court at Midnapore where the learned Court of revision rightly or wrongly passed an order which by itself does not pave any ground for the aggrieved to knock on the door of the High Court to examine the legality, or otherwise of the order passed by the learned Court below.
( 7 ) IT is manifest from section 115a that where any proceeding for revision is commenced before the District Court, the decision of the District Court on such proceeding shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. If any application for revision has been made by any party either to the High Court under Section 115 or to the District Court under this section, no further application by the same party shall be entertained by the other of them.
( 8 ) THE emphasis is on the word 'final' which is the controlling or Governing factor inhibiting initiation of further revision before the High Court once such right is available of by a party and disposed of by a Court of Coordinate jurisdiction.
( 9 ) A controversy has been raised that the High Court is still possessed of power to adjudicate upon the dispute as the order complained of according to the learned counsel for the revisoinist, has no root in law.
( 10 ) THUS in the vertex of controversy, a thin line of distinction is sought to have been made immediately which comes up for the decision of Court about the meaning and concept of the terms "appeal", "inter-locutary" and "final". It has been debated at the bar that the High Court is diverted of its power to entertain a revision once disposed of by a Court of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction.
( 11 ) TO answer the respective contentions, when I glance at the word `final', a legitimate inference can be made that if an order is not a final order, it verges on interlocutory order. It is an axiom
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.