1. The controversy involved relates to maintainability of the Civil Revision in hand, in wake of amendment to Section 115 Civil Procedure Code Svt. 1977 incorporated by amending Act of 2009.

2. The background facts are as under:-

3. The petitioner on 27th September, 2008 commenced a suit for declaration and recovery of possession in the Court of Sub Judge, Katra. The case set up was that a plot of land measuring 8 kanals comprising survey No. 380/130 min situated at Mutyal near Church at Katra was purchased by the parties out of the joint family funds and that the petitioner was entitled to one half i.e. 10 marlas out of the said plot. Alongside the suit, the petitioner filed an application for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the respondent from making any change in the nature of the suit land, or alienating it pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court vide order dated 13th December, 2008, dismissed the temporary injunction application and declined ad- interim injunction to the petitioner. Aggrieved with the trial Court order, the petitioner filed a 1st Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in the Court of Principal District Judge, Reasi. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11th September, 2009. The petitioner not satisfied with the order of the First Appellate Court assails the order in the present Civil Revision on the grounds detailed in the petition.

4. The merits of the Civil Revision apart, preliminary objections is raised by counsel for the respondents as regards maintainability of the Civil Revision. It is contended that inconsequence of amendment to Section 115 Civil Procedure Code, restricting ambit and scope of the revisional powers of the High Court, Civil Revision is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as such.

5. Heard and considered.

6. The Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Act VI of 2009 dated 20.03.2009) is an omnibus amendment to Code of Civil Procedure and amongst its other provisions amends Section 115 that confers power on the High Court to call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court, and to vary or reverse such order, where the subordinate Court is found to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, or the order to have caused failure of justice.

7. The amendment substitutes proviso to Section 115

(i) CPC by the following:-

"Provided that the High Court shall not, under this Section vary or reverse any order made, or an order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding".

8. A closer look at the amended provision reveals that the amendment of 2009 restricts the supervisory powers of the High Court available under Section 115 CPC stand to a large extent. Before amendment of 2009, the High Court would exercise its revisional powers and vary or reverse any order made, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, even where the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. Section 115 (1) proviso (b), before amendment thus gave wide powers to the High Court to vary or reverse any order as said above, even where it did not involve erroneous assumption of jurisdiction, failure to exercise jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The, High Court would still interfere where the order though not tainted with any jurisdictional error, if allowed to stand would cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. The Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 2009 deletes clause (b) of the proviso to Section 115 (1) CPC and substitutes it by the proviso reproduced above.

9. It follows that the High Court can e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document