The interpretation of statutory provisions and the application of legislative intent are crucial in determining the scope and applicability of legal provisions.

JUDGMENT:

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

We have heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Vide order dated 23.02.2023, the present reference was made to the Larger Bench. The said order reads as follows:-

“The present writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioners to assail the order dated 13.02.2023, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, in O.S. No.25 of 2023.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge has refused to pass an ex parte interim injunction order on the petitioners’ (who are the plaintiffs in the Suit) application for injunction against the respondents-defendants. Notice has been issued to the defendants for filing of their objections, returnable on 13.03.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable. In this regard, he submits that no appeal is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(v) of the CPC, as no order granting, or refusing to grant interim injunction has been passed. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Dhani & others vs. Raja Ram & others, 2011 (2) ARC 465, wherein the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be maintainable against an order of issuance of notice to the defendants, before grant of an injunction. Thus, the only remedy available to the petitioners is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel submits that the basis of the said decision is the language of Section 115 of CPC, as is applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He submits that the language of Section 115 of CPC, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, is pari materia with that as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. Section 115 (1) of CPC, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, reads as follows:-

“Section 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 no appeal lies against the order and 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 the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (emphasis supplied)”

6. It appears that the revision has been held to be not maintainable on account of the use of words “in a case decided” in Section 115(1) of CPC, as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh, and also as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand.

7. To me, it appears, that the said words are a surplusage, and are liable to be ignored. I say so, because if Section 115(1) of CPC were to be read literally, while giving the said words “in a case decided”, their literal meaning, it would follow that revision would be maintainable only once the Original Suit or other proceeding is decided, and that no revision would be maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in an Original Suit, or other proceeding, even though, the conditions laid down in clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 115(1) of CPC are satisfied in respect of an order passed during the pendency of the Original Suit or other proceeding.

8. Moreover, it would also mean that there would be two parallel remedies available against an interlocutory order after the Original Suit or other proceeding is finally decided, i.e. (i) under Section 96 read with Section 105 of CPC, and; (ii) under Section 115 of CPC, as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, if the conditions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 115(1) of CPC are satisfied. It appears to me, that the legislative intent could not have been to provide two different and parallel remedies against the same order, while, also completely denying the remedy provided under Section 115 of CPC, as originally framed.

9. The State amendment,