BINOD KUMAR ROY, R. P. MISRA, JJ.

( 1 ) IN Original Suit No. 117 of 1999, M/smahavir Cement v. U. P. F. C. the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly on 10/9/1999 passed an order to put up the petition 50 Ga (filed for hearing the petition 6 Ga) for its hearing on the date fixed inviting objection to be filed in the meantime. Respondent No. 3 filed Civil revision No. 155 of 1999 against the order aforesaid which was disposed of by the order impugned by the Incharge District Judge, bareilly as contained in Annexure No. 5 behind the back of the writ petitioner directing the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly to decide positively the application 6-C on the date fixed before passing any order in the Suit and further directing the writ petitioner not to take possession over the factory till disposal of the said application. The petitioner assails validity of this order before us invoking Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THREE fold contentions have been made by Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayers made in this writ petition:- (I) Learned Incharge District Judge has committed an apparent juris-dictional error in passing the impugned order even though the order of learned Civil Judge (Senior division) did not amount any case decided within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure and thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone: (ii) Learned Incharge District Judge has committed an apparent jurisdictional error in restraining the writ petitioner which was performing its statutory duties under section 29 of the U. P. Financial corporation Act and that too without giving any opportunity to have its say in the matter and thereby the well settled principles of natural justice have been nakedly breached; and (iii) The Suit itself was not maintainable.

( 3 ) SRI A. C. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 very fairly takes up a stand that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the Civil Revision itself was not maintainable, besides no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the Incharge District Judge.

( 4 ) SECTION 115-A of the Code of Civil procedure, as enacted by our State Legislature, reads thus :-"115-A. Revision.-The High Court, in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, including such suits or other proceedings instituted before August 1, 1978, and the District court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or District court, as the case may be, 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; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have vested in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation, decided by the district Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section. Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- (i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. Explanation:-In this section, the expression any case which has been decided includes any order deciding an issue, in the cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document