( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-12-2005 passed by the revisional court.

( 3 ) A Suit for permanent injunction filed by the contesting respondent No. 1 an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 c. P. C was also moved for grant of temporary injunction. The trial court not being fully satisfied for granting exparte injunction order directed notices to be issued to the defendant petitioner as well as proforma respondents.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against that order Civil Revision No. 219 of 2005 was preferred by the plaintiff before the District Judge an by the impugned order the District Judge admitted the same and directed the notice to be issued to the petitioner defendant and proforma respondents/ defendants. He has also passed the interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo regarding property in question.

( 5 ) IT has been submitted from the side of petitioner that the very order of entertaining the revision is illegal as the revision was not at all maintainable. The learned counsel has cited the case law of Gayatri Devi and others Vs. Shashi Pal Singh, (2005) 5 scc 527: AIR 2005 SC 2342, Rajpal Singh vs. Richh Pal Sing and others, (2006) 62 ALR 278: 2006 All LJ 532, Bhagwati Prasad lohar and others Vs. State of U. P. through secretary of Legal Department, Lucknow, u. P. and others, 2005 (60) ALR 512 : AIR 2005 SC 331 Rajendra Singh and others Vs. Brji Mohan Agarwal and another, AIR 2003 allahabad 180: 2003 All LJ 1505, Brij bhushan Vs, District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 2004 (1) AWC 502 : and Shiv shankti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs m/s Swaraj Developers, 2003 (4) Apex decisions (SC) 238 : AIR 2003 SC 2434. With the strength of the aforesaid cases, the learned counsel has emphasised that an order directing issue of notices to the defendants on a temporary function matter by the court, is not revisable under Section 115 of C. P. C.

( 6 ) THE provisions of Section 115 C. P. C. has been amended by Code of Civil procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and in that proviso it has been added substituting earlier one and this Section for convenience is reproduced as below:

Revision. :- [ (1)] The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such high Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: [provided that the High Court shall not. under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any 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 proceedings.)

[ (2) The High Court shall not, under this section vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the high Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.

[ (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court. ]

Explanation.- In this section, the expression, "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. ]

( 7 ) THE aforesaid proviso, which has substituted the earlier proviso of Section 115 c. P. C. , has been subject of interpretation in the aforesaid cases by the Honble Apex court as well as this Court. After this amendment of 1999, U. P. Amendment of Section 115 C. P. C. has been incorporated, which also for convenience is reproduced as below:-

"115. Revision. (1) A superior Court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document