The judgment and decree passed under Order XXXVII of the CPC is amenable to routine appeal under Section 96 CPC, and a civil revision cannot split the judgment of the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners in this case figured as defendants in a civil suit filed by the respondent herein on file no. 87/2021 before the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu instituted on 08.04.2021.

2. The civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 17,30,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 02.06.2016 till its actual realization.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the civil suit by resorting to Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 providing for summary procedure with regard to the specified suits.

4. The facts which led to the filing of the civil suit by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioners/defendants in brief are that vide a Deed of Conveyance dated 02.06.2016 the respondent/plaintiff had agreed for the sale of lease hold rights qua plot no. 56 40 x 80 sq. ft. situated in Sector no. 4-JDA Housing Colony, Roop Nagar, Jammu which was held by the respondent/plaintiff from the Jammu Development Authority with a right reserved to transfer the same.

5. The conveyance deal between the respondent/plaintiff and the petitioners/defendants qua the aforesaid plot of land came to be documented in the form of a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 02.06.2016 in terms whereof the sale consideration payable by the petitioners/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff was Rs. 17,30,000/- for payment of which a cheque bearing no. 004986 dated 05.07.2016 drawn on J&K Bank Ltd Branch Mishriwala Akhnoor Road had come to be issued by the petitioners/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff. The said cheque was issued against the account of a partnership firm of the petitioners/defendants but the said cheque came to be dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The respondent/plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 29.10.2020 to the petitioners/defendants seeking payment of the said consideration amount of Rs. 17,30,000/- along with interest. Failure on the part of the petitioners/defendants to respond to the said demand of the respondent/plaintiff resulted in the respondent/plaintiff instituting the suit for recovery by taking recourse to Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’).

6. The petitioners came to seek leave to defend the suit from the trial court of learned Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu. The trial court of learned Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu came to reject the plea of the petitioners/defendants for leave to defend the suit and consequently passed a judgment and decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 17,30,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum on the decretal amount till its realization.

7. The judgment and decree dated 15.12.2021 thus came to be passed in the suit against the petitioners/defendants. It is against this judgment dated 15.12.2021 that the petitioners/defendants are seeking to maintain a civil revision on the pretext that since their relief of leave to defend the suit was negated by the impugned judgment passed by the court below as such in that context the petitioners/defendants have a right to file the revision under Section 115 of the CPC.

8. The very fact that with the passing of the judgment dated 15.12.2021 by the court of learned Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu resulting in passing of a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 17,30,000/- along with interest, the petitioners/defendants came to be the judgment debtors and the respondent/plaintiff as decree holder in the eyes of law.

9. Now, whether with respect to a judgment and decree against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any court subordinate thereto, a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be resorted to by the judgment debtors to upset the judgment underlying the decree is the question which came to be posed by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants by citing provis