Exercise of power u/s 151 of CPC.

Abdul Hadi, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is for dispensing with the production of the fair order dated 24.7.1990 in R.P.No.75 of 1989 in O.S. No.254 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri, which is sought to be revised in the above civil revision petition. The said C.R.P. is also posted before me along with the said civil miscellaneous petition, for admission. When the said Civil Miscellaneous Petition and the Civil Revision Petition originally came up before me for admission on 9.8.1990, I posed the question to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, whether the production of fair order could be dispensed with at all by the court and whether arid the civil Revision petition is validly presented without the production of certified copy of the fair order. Then I also expressed that the affidavit in support of the petition for dispensing with did not give necessary particulars. Then the learned Counsel for the petitioner took time for filing an additional affidavit. When the C.R.P. and C.M.P. were posted the next day on 10.8.1990, I posed the above said question of maintainability of the above said C.M.P., for dispensing with. Then after making some submissions, the learned Counsel said that he would file a copy of the fair order itself within a week. So, I gave him time for a week. But, on 27.8.1990 when the matter came up again, he did not file the copy of the fair order, but argued that the said CMP, was maintainable. Before I deal with the said argument of the learned councel, let me refer to the relevant rules. Order 4, Rule 21 of the Appellate Side Rules which were framed by this Court under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides as follows:

Civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code or any other enactment shall be accompanied by (1) a certified copy of the decree or order which is to be revised, (2) a certified copy of the judgment, if any on which decree is based (3) (4) (5) (6) and (7)....

It is needless to observe that in the above context the expression 'order' in Clause (1) of the above Rule refers only to decretal order and would not include the above referred to "fair order" of the present case. The said fair order could only come under the expression "Judgment...on which decree is based" referred to in Clause (2) above. No doubt Order 41, Rule 1, C.P.C. relating to appeals from original decree, provides "every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the decree applied from and (Unless the Applellate court dispenses therewith) of the judgment on which it is founded. "So, in the case of the first appeals, the Appellate Court is given the power to dispense with the production of copy of the judgment, though not the power to dispense with the copy of the decree. But, as already seen under Rule 21 of Order 4 of Appellate Side Rules relating to Civil Revision Petitions, no such power to dispense with, has been given at all.

2. However, the learned Counsel contended that this Court could dispense with the production of the copy of the fair order even in the case of Civil Revision Petitions under its inherent powers referred to in Section 151, C.P.C. The learned Counsel, in this connection relied on Century Flour Mills v. S. Suppiah where it was held that injunction could be granted by court under Section 151, C.P.C. even in a case which does not come under Order 30, C.P.C. But the said decision, in my opinion, can have no application to the question at issue, In a case not covered by Order 39, C.P.C. the Court can no doubt grant injunction under Section 151, C.P.C. But, here, the Appellate Side Rules framed under C.P.C., specifically provides that the memorandum of Civil Revision Petition "shall" among other things, be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment, if any, on which the decree is based, and so, the inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C., cannot be exercised inconsistent with or coming into confli