SATISH CHANDRA, C. J.

An arbitrator filed his award dated 19th Nov. , 1973, in the court of the Civil Judge, Kanpur. Objections were filed thereto. They were allowed in part. The award was remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration by an order dated 30th April, 1975. A revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed against this order. The Additional District Judges, on 21st April, 1977, allowed the revision and set aside the award. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present revision under S. 115, C. P. C. against the order dated 21st April, 1977. The valuation of the revision is Rupees 11,983/54 p. The valuation of the proceedings before the Civil Judge was the same.

2. At the hearing of the revision an objection was raised that the revision was not maintainable in the High Court. The learned single Judge referred the following two questions to a Full Bench :

(1) Whether the present revision is maintainable in the High Court ?

(2) Whether the phrase "case arising out of an original suit" occurring in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure covers orders passed in an appeal or revision ?

3. Section 115, C. P. C. conferred powers of revision on the High Court alone. The State legislature amended Sec. 115 by the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, No. 14 of 1970. By this amendment revisional jurisdiction was conferred on the District Court concurrently with the High Court with the following proviso -

"provided that nothing in this Section shall be construed to empower the District Court to call for the record of any case arising out of an original suit of the value of twenty thousand rupees or above. "

4. The concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court was excluded in respect of cases arising out of original suits of the value of twenty thousand rupees or above. In such cases the revisional jurisdiction lay exclusively with the High Court. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the 1970 Amendment Act stated that this was to help in reducing the pressure of work on the High Court.

5. This, however, was not found satisfactory. Section 115, C. P. C. was again amended by the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of 1972. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Act of 1972 stated :

"it is now proposed that in cases of a value below Rs. 20,000/- this power may be exercised by District Judges alone and in cases of higher valuation this power may be exercised by the High Court. This will eliminate one of the causes of delay in the disposal of suits. "

6. Section :15, as amended in 1972, was -

"the High Court in cases arising out of original suits of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, and the District Court in any other case 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 acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity,

the High Court or the District Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. "

7. By this amendment the revisional jurisdiction was bifurcated. Part of it remained with the High Court, and another part was given to the District Court. The two were mutually exclusive. The revisional power was contemplated to be exercised by the High Court or the District Court in separate fields. There is no indication that the High Court was intended to exercise the revisional jurisdiction against orders passed in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the District Court. In other words, Section 115 was not amended to confer a revisional jurisdiction against an order passed under S. 115 itself.

8. But on this point doubts arose, and the question whether an order passed by the District Judge in a revision was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document