Back
2003(2) JLJ 162
Subhash Samvatsar, J.
Narsingh @ Nathu Singh and another v. Pyare Singh and another
Civil Revn. No. 217 of 1998; Decided on 11.7.2002.
The counsel urged that the amendment has no retrospective effect and will not affect the pending revision. [Para 6
Held : From the perusal of section 32 of the Act, I have no doubt in my mind that the said amending Act will apply to pending revisions. Section 32 of the Act clearly says that the provisions of section 115 of CPC, the principal Act, as amended by section 12, shall not apply to or affect any proceedings for revision which had been finally disposed of. Thus, it is clear that this amending Act will not apply to the cases which have been already decided by the Court. It implies that it will apply to all pending cases.
C.R. No. 962/99 relied on. [Paras 7 & 8
(2) Interpretation of Statutes -- amending Act -- whether operates prospectively or retrospectively -- can be gathered from the Act itself. 1995 JLJ 98, 1986 JLJ 344 and 1996 ACJ 730 relied on. [Para 6
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115(1), proviso (as inserted) -- word ‘proceedings‘ -- interpretation of -- cannot be made by reading a single word in isolation -- intention of Legislature is to curtail scope of revision -- proceedings are such which are separately registered as miscellaneous judicial case or execution proceedings.
For interpreting the word "proceedings‘, one has to, see the background and reference to the context in which the word is used and interpretation of the word should be made in the light of the intention of Legislature. The said interpretation cannot be made, by reading a single word in isolation, The intention of the Legislature behind the amendment is to curtail the scope of revision under section 115 CPC and looking to the said intention the word "proceedings" cannot be widely interpreted and it wi1lhave to be interpreted in a sense which gives an effective meaning to the amendment. The amendment as incorporated under section 115 CPC is to reduce the pendency of the revision which normally delays the proceedings pending in the lower Courts; and looking to that intention the word "proceedings" cannot be widely interpreted as suggested by Shri Naik. The word "proceedings" in the case is used for the proceedings which are separately registered as MJC, execution, etc. It does mean that every application filed in the suit is an independent proceedings. Thus, it is clear that intention of the Legislature is to bar revision against any interlocutory order. [Para 9
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 (amended) and O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 d`revision against order passed on application under O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 -- not maintainable. [Para 10
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 1999&/kkjk 12 rFkk 32&flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&/kkjk 115 ¼la‘kksf/kr½&la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e vkjaHk gksus ls iwoZ fuiVk, x, flfoy iqujh{k.k&Oko`Ùk gSa&yafcr iqujh{k.k O;ko`Ùk ugha gSaA
dkmUlsy us fuosnu fd;k fd la‘kks/ku dk Hkwry{kh çHkko ugha gS rFkk mlls yafcr iqujh{k.k çHkkfor ugha gksxkA ¿iSjk 6
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 32 ds ifj‘khyu ls esjs eu esa dksbZ lansg ugha jgk fd mDr la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e yafcr iqujh{k.kksa dks ykxw gksxkA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 32 esa Li"V dfFkr gS fd eq[; vf/kfu;e flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds] /kkjk 12 }kjk ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr] mica/k iqujh{k.k dh ,slh fdlh Hkh dk;Zokgh dks ykxw ugha gksaxs rFkk mls çHkkfor ugha djsaxs ftldk vafre :i ls fuiVkjk gks x;k gksA bl çdkj] Li"V gS fd ;g la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e mu ekeyksa dks ykxw ugha gksxk ftUgsa U;k;ky; }kjk igys gh fofuf‘pr dj fn;k x;k gSA blls foof{kr gS fd og leLr yafcr ekeyksa dks ykxw gksxkA flfoy iqujh{k.k Ø-962@99 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 7 ,oa 8
¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu&la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e&Hkfo";y{kh :i ls çofrZr gksrk gS vFkok Hkwry{kh :i ls&Loa vf/kfu;e ls vuqeku fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1995 ts ,y ts 98] 1986 ts ,y ts 344 rFkk 1996 , lh ts 730 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 6
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&/kkjk 115¼1½ ijarqd ¼;Fkk var%LFkkfir½&‘‘kCn ^dk;Zokgh*&dk fuoZpu&,d ‘‘kCn dks ,dkdh :i ls i<+dj ugha fd;k tk ldrk&fo/kku&eaMy dk vk‘k; iqujh{k.k dh O;kfIr de djuk gS&dkZokfg;k¡ og gS tks çdh.kZ U;kf;d ekeys vFkok fu"iknu dk;Zokgh ds :i esa i`Fkd :i ls jftLVªhÑr gSA
‘‘kCn ^dk;Zokgh* ds fuoZpu ds fy, ftl i`"BHkwfe rFkk lanHkZ esa ‘‘kCn ç;qDr gqvk gS] og ns[ks tkuk gksrs gSa rFkk ‘‘kCn dk fuoZpu fo/kku&eaMy ds vk‘k; ds çdk‘k esa fd;k tkuk pkfg,A mDr fuoZpu ,d ‘‘kCn dks ,dkdh :i ls i<+ dj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA la‘kks/ku ds ihNs fo/kku&eaMy dk vk‘k; flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k dh O;kfIr de djuk gS rFkk mDr vk‘k; dks ns[krs gq,] ‘‘kCn ^dk;Zokgh* dk O;kid fuoZpu ugha fd;k tk ldrk rFkk mldk fuoZpu ,sls vFkZ esa fd;k tkuk gksxk ftlls la‘kks/ku dks çHkkoh vFkZ feyrk gksA flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu ;Fkk lfEefyr la‘kks/ku iqujh{k.k ds yacu esa dVkSrh djus ds fy, gS ftlls lkekU;r% fupys U;k;ky;ksa esa yafcr dk;Zokgh foyafcr gks tkrh gS( rFkk bl vk‘k; dks ns[krs gq,] ‘‘kCn ^dk;Zokgh* dk Jh uk;d }kjk lq>k, x, vuqlkj] O;kid fuoZpu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ekeys esa ^dk;Zokgh* ‘‘kCn mu dk;Zokfg;ksa ds fy, ç;qDr gksrk gS tks çdh.kZ U;kf;d ekeys vFkok fu"iknu dk;Zokgh ds :i esa i`Fkd :i ls jftLVªhÑr gksA bldk ;gh vFkZ gqvk fd okn esa Qkby fd;k x;k çR;sd vkosnu Lora= dk;Zokgh gSA bl çdkj] Li"V gS fd fo/kku&eaMy dk vk‘k; fdlh Hkh varoZrhZ vkns‘k ds fo#) iqujh{k.k oftZr djuk gSA ¿iSjk 9
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&/kkjk 115 ¼la‘kksf/kr½ rFkk vk- 39 fu-1 ,oa 2&vk- 39 fu-1 ,oa 2 ds v/khu vkosnu ij ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo#) iqujh{k.k&pykus ;ksX; ugha gSA ¿iSjk 10
1. This revision along-with other revision is fixed for hearing the question about maintainability of the revision in the light of the amendment under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is amended by an Act namely the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999), with effect from 1st July, 2002. By the said amendment, the proviso (b) of section 115 is deleted. The said proviso is as under:
"(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made."
3. As per the said amendment, the High Court can interfere in its revisional power only when the revision, if allowed, would finally dispose of the suit or the other proceedings, if the order is made in favour of the party applying for the revision.
4. The question- is, Whether this amendment is applicable to the present case?
5. The matter was argued at length by Shri N.K. Modi, Additional Advocate General, Shri H.D. Gupta, Advocate, Senior Advocate Shri S.B. Mishra, Shri N.C. Jain, Advocate and Shri A.M. Naik, Sr. Advocate, Shri S.S. Bansal and Shri K.L. Mangal, Advocate.
6. The counsel urged that the amendment has no retrospective effect and will not" affect the pending revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Division Bench Judgments of this Court reported in 1995 JLJ 98, (in re - Krishna Deosingh) 1986-JLJ 344 = 1986 MPLJ 406 (Ramchandra Jagannath v. Dattatraya Shankarrao) and 1996 ACJ 730 (Ramesh Singh v. Chinta Devi), the judgment of the Apex Court. All the judgments laid down the principle whether the amending Act has retrospective effect or not, i.e. whether it will apply to the pending cases or not depends on the wording and intention of the amending Act and for that it is necessary to go through the amending Act itself to gather its intention. Section 32(1) of the repeal and savings in the amending Act reads as under :
"32. (1) The provisions of section 115 of the principal Act, as amended by section 12 of this Act, shall not apply to or affect any proceeding for revision which had been finally disposed of".
7. From the perusal of section 32 of the Act, I have no doubt in my mind that the said amending Act will apply to pending revisions. Section 32 of the Act clearly says that the provisions of section 115 of CPC, the principal Act as amended by section 12, shall not apply to or affect any proceedings for revision which had been finally disposed of. Thus, it is clear that this amending Act will not apply to the cases which have been already decided by the Court. It implies that it will apply to all pending cases. It will not be irrelevant to refer to section 32(g) of the Act which clearly saves all the pending appeals under section 96, CPC which have been admitted before the commencement of the amending Act. No such provision is made in sub-section (1) of Sec. 32 of the CPC, which clearly shows that the intention of the Legislation was that the Act should be made applicable to the pending cases.
8. A similar view is taken by Indore Bench of this High Court in C.R. No. 962/99 (Phool Singh v. Malva alias Bhavaliya and two others) wherein the Hon 'ble Judge has taken a view that the said amendment will apply to all. pending litigation and no revision against any interlocutory order is maintainable.
9. Shri A.M. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the said judgment has not decided the impact of the word "proceedings", used in the proviso of section 115, CPC. According to him, the proceedings are different from the suit and the proceeding will include the decision of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, CPC under section 10, CPC and many other applications. According to him, all proceedings should be widely interpreted. For interpreting the word "proceedings'' one has to see the background and reference to the context in which the word is used and interpretation of the word shou
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
