The interpretation of Section 115 C.P.C., specifically the grounds for revision, certification requirement for filing a revision application, and the conditions for varying or reversing an order under the section, was the central legal point established in the judgment.

Anil Kumar,J.: -

Heard Sri R.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

By means of the present revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mallihabad, Lucknow in regular suit no. 400/2006 (Chandra Prakash Srivastava vs. Manish Kumar Maheshwari and Ors.).

2. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that, the revisionist/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration registered as regular suit no. 400/2006 in which a application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. has been moved, registered as Paper No. 6-Ga.

3. The said matter has come up for consideration before the court below. After hearing learned counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff, the court below was of the opinion that before granting ex-parte temporary injunction, it will be appropriate to hear the respondent. Accordingly, notices were issued to the respondent to file response and order dated 30.08.2000 has been passed to the said effect.

4. Aggrieved by the said fact, the present revision has been filed.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the revisionist and going through the record, the first and foremost question which is to be decided in the present case is that against the issuing of notice, whether the present revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is maintainable or not.

6. U.P. Ordinance No. 25 of 2003 and 26 of 2003 by which second proviso has been added of Sub section 3 of the Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to learned Standing counsel these two ordinance have been incorporated in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Civil Procedure Code (U.P. Amendment) Act, 2003 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003). The said amendment has received the assent of the President on 19th December 2003 and the amended act has been published in the U.P. gazette Extra Part I, section (Ka), dated 20th December 2003. The original text of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as stood present under the Central Act as well as after U.P. Amendment of 2003, for convenience are reproduced as under: -

Original Text as per Central Act

115. 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, or

(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 proceedings, 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."

U.P. Amendment as per Central Act

"115 Revision-(1)A Superior Court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate court where the subordinate court has-

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or

(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

(c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a ce