1. This revision petition assail the two orders passed by Sub Judge (CJM) Jammu; one dated 28-4-1992 and the other dated 26 9-1992 The first order disposes of an application for ad-interim relief filed by the plaintiff. respondent in terms of an agreement between learned counsel for the parties and the second order disposes of a subsequent application filed by counsel for the petitioners in terms of Sec. 151 C P. G. for redalling and vacating of the stay order granted on 28 4 1992.

2. Learned counsel appealing for the respondent has taken two preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of this revision petition one, that an order passed by the trial court on consensus i f the counsel for the parties is not revisable- and second that no revision lies against an order of review. It is necessary for me to meet these two preliminary objections first

3- The arguments that no revision will lie against an order of review, does not find any relevance for this case. This is because the basic challenge thrown in this petition is upon the order passed on 28-4-1992. The subsequent order, by virtue of which petitioners application seeking withdrawal of that order was dismissed, also stands challenged in this revision petition Terming that order to be one of review, the challenge is on the ground no revision lies against an order as such This argument is misconceived because the subsequent order has added nothing new and has maintained the earlier order. This order was passed while disposing of an application under Sec. 151 C P.C. only.

4. Now coming to the main argument as to whether or not a revision lies against an order passed with consent for the parties, we will have to go to the genesis of the consent which is said to have formed the basis of the order under revision. Once such consent is assailed on the ground that the agent did not have any authority to grant that consent, the very foundations of the order are shaken and the Court will be within its powers to enter upon such a revision Law does not create an estoppels for filing a revision against a consent order. An appeal shall,no doubt not lie against a consent decree but there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which like Sec. 96 would create a bar for maintainability of a revision against a consent order.

5. Sec. 115 C.P C not only enables but also casts an obligation upon a court to intervene when an error of jurisdiction or illegality has been commitied or where its non-interference would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable loss to a party against whom the order has been passed. The purpose behind this section is to provide a remedy for an aggrieved party to obtain rectification of non-appealable orders. Thus a revision will lie against such an order.

6. Now looking to the present case from the object of Sec. 115 C. P. C. as discussed above we find that the order impugned in this revision arises out of a statement which is said to have been tendered by the counsel for the defendant. There is nothing on record to show that the said counsel had tendered this concession in writing. The trail court has not even recorded the statement of counsel giving that concession. Except the order of the trial court dated 28-4-1992 there is nothing to show that such concession was ever given.

7. It is true that the impugned order carries with it a presumption of correctness but such a presumption is always rebuttable in law. Then it seems that as soon as the petitioner defendants came to know about the concession having been granted by their counsel, they approached the trial court for cancellation of the order passed on the strength of such a concession. The trial court should have tried to address itself to the question of rebuttal of this presumption There are three parties in this case. Some Addl. Chief Secretary seems to have engaged the counsel. Was the counsel a duly authorised agent on behalf of all the respondents in view of Sections 122 and 123 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document