Back
2002 (2) JLJ 201
K.K. Lahoti, J.
Sawal Singh v. Smt. Ram Sakhi and others
Civil Revn. No. 202 of 2000; against the order of Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class II. Khandwa, passed in Civil Suit No. 170-A of 1992;
Decided on 29.7.2002.
The batch of revisions has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [Para 1
For the decision of the revision petitions, following questions arise:
(a) The effect and scope of invoking revisional jurisdiction of the High Court after the amendment of 1.7.2002.
(b) The effect of the said amendment on pending cases on 1.7.2002. [Para 3
Held: By virtue of recent amendment by which sub-clause (b) of the proviso to the sub-section (1) has been deleted, what remains in the statute book is the proviso. The proviso creates an embargo in exercise of power of revision. To put it differently, it restricts the exercise of jurisdiction while entertaining the revision. The Court may be satisfied with regard to the components mentioned in the first compartment but unless the case fits into the category that has been engrafted in the proviso the Court will not be in a position to interfere. [Para 4
The proviso clearly lays a postulate that if the order which is under assail if it had been made in favour of party applying for revision, the suit or other proceedings would have been finally disposed of. [Para 5
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 - Ss. 24, 63, 99A. 141, 144, 146, 147, 152 and 47 -- proceedings under -- are independent proceedings -- they are original in nature. [Paras 6 & 7
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- revision -- finality attached to appellate order under special statute -- such order can still be revised under S. 115. AIR 1996 SC 1321 followed. . [Para 8
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115(1) proviso (as inserted in 2002) -suit not going to be disposed of finally -- no revisional jurisdiction can be exercised -- such issue can be raised in regular appeal.
Now this Court will not exercise revisional jurisdiction in respect of those orders which would not dispose of the suit finally. Though on the decision of the suit the effect of the order may be substantial, material, or on jurisdictional issues, but if immediate effect is not the final disposal, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised, though those issues can definitely be raised when regular appeal is preferred. [Para 8
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115(1) proviso (as inserted in 2002) -proviso -- to be considered in relation to principal section -- revisional remedy is procedural which can be curtailed by the Legislature. [Para 9
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 105 -- interim orders passed in suit -- if not appealable may be challenged in final appeal -- such interim order cannot now be challenged in revision. [Para 10
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115(1) proviso (as inserted in 2002) -takes effect from the date of amendment itself -- pending revisions are‘ not sun1ived except saved by the provision itself.
The next question arises whether the pending revisions on 1.7.2002 will be governed by the amended provision or with the provisions which were in existence when the revision was filed.
It is settled law that the remedy of revision is not as of right. It is procedural law and every case has to be decided on the existing law when the power is to be exercised. 1986 JLJ 344 (FB) relied on. [Para 11
(8) Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999 -- Ss. 32(2) (i) and 12 -section 115. CPC as amended by S. 12 of the Act -- saves only finally disposed of revisions -- pending cases are not saved.
By the aforesaid provision, only the finally disposed of revision, which has been decided prior to coming into force of this Amendment Act will not be affected. The intendment of the Legislature is that all the pending matters will be governed by the amended provision. 1986 JLJ 344 (FB) relied on. [Para 13
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 ¼1½ ijarqd ¼lu~ 2002 esa ;Fkk var% LFkkfir½ && iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx fucZaf/kr && tc rd ekeyk ijarqd esa ifjxf.kr izoxZ esa ugha vkrk && U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
iqujh{k.kksa dk ;g lewg flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu bl U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk dk voyac ysrs gq, Qkby fd;k x;k gSA ¿ iSjk 1À
iqujh{k.k ;kfpdkvksa ds fofu‘p;u ds fy, fuEu iz‘u mn~Hkwr gksrs gS %
¼d½ 1-7-2002 ds la‘kks/ku ds i‘pkr~ mPp U;k;ky; dh iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk ds voya ou dk izHkko rFkk O;kfIr]
¼[k½ 1-7-2002 dks yafcr ekeyksa ij mDr la‘kks/ku dk izHkkoA ¿ iSjk 3À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % uohu la‘kks/ku ds dkj.k] ftlds }kjk mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds ijarqd dk mi[kaM ¼[k½ gVk;k x;k gS] dkuwuw esa tks cp jgrk gS og gS ijarqdA ijarqd ls iqujh{k.k dh ‘kfDr esa iz;ksx eas vf/kjks/k l`ftr gksrk gSA fHké izdkj ls dgk tk, rc] mlls iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk xzg.k djrs le; vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx fucZaf/kr gksrk gSA izFke mi[kaM esa mfYyf[kr vo;oksa ds ckjs esa U;k;ky; dk lek/kku gks ldrk gS ijarq tc rd ekeyk ml izoxZ esa ugha vkrk tks ijarqd esa ifjxf.kr fd;k x;k gS] rc rd U;k;ky; gLr{ksi djus dh fLFkfr esa ugha gksxkA ¿ iSjk 4À
ijarqd esa ;g vk/kkj rRo Li"Vr% vf/kdfFkr gS fd ;fn vkf{kIr vkns‘k iqujh{k.k ds fy, vkosnu djus okys i{kdkj ds i{k esa gksrk] rc okn vFkok vU; dk;Zokgh dk vafre fuiVkjk gksrkA ¿ iSjk 5À
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 24] 63] 99d] 141] 144] 146] 147] 152 rFkk 47 && ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;k¡ && Loar= dk;Zokfg;k¡ gS && og ewy Lo:i dh gaSA
¿ iSjk 6 ,oa 7À
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && iqujh{k.k && fo‘ks"k dkuwu ds v/khu vihyh vkns‘k ls vafrerk layXu && ,slk vkns‘k fQj Hkh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu iqujhf{kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 1321 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115¼1½ ijarqd ¼lu~ 2002 esa ;Fkk var% LFkkfir½ okn dk vafre fuiVkjk gksus dh fLFkfr ugha && iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh && ,slk fook|d fu;fer vihy esa mBk;k tk ldrk gSA
vc bl U;k;ky; }kjk mu vkns‘kksa ds ckjs esa iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr ugha dh tk,xh ftuls okn dk vafre fuiVkjk ugha gksrkA ;|fi okn ds fof‘p;u ij vkns‘k dk izHkko lkjoku] rkfRod vFkok vf/kdkfjrk laca/kh fook|dksa ij gks ldrk gS] ;Fkkfi ;fn rkfRod izHkko fuiVkjs dk ugha gks] rc iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh ;|fi] og fook|d fuf‘pr :i ls rc mBk, tk ldrs gS tc fu;fer vihy izLrqr dh tkrh gSA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115¼1½ ijarqd ¼lu~ 2002 esa ;Fkk var% LFkkfir½ ijarqd && ij fopkj eq[; /kkjk ds laca/k eas fd;k tkuk gksxk && iqujh{k.k dk mipkj izfØ;kRed gS ftls fo/kku&eaMy }kjk ?kVk;k tk ldrk gS ¿ iSjk 9À
¼6½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 105 && okn esa ikfjr varfje vkns‘k && vihy ;ksX; ugha gksa rc vafre vihy esa vk{ksfir fd, tk ldrs gS && ,sls varfje vkns‘k vc iqujh{k.k esa vk{ksfir ugha fd, tk ldrsA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼7½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115¼1½ ijarqd ¼lu~ 2002 esa ;Fkk var% LFkkfir½ && la‘kks/ku ds fnukad ls gh izHkkoh gS && Lo;a mica/k }kjk O;ko`Ùk ds flok; yafcr iqujh{k.k ugha cprsA
vxyk iz‘u ;g mn~Hkwr gksrk gS fd 1-7-2002 dks yafcr iqujh{k.k la‘kksf/kr mica/k }kjk fofu;fer gksaxs vFkok mu mica/kksa }kjk tks ml le; foHkktu Fks tc iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk Qkby dh xbZ FkhA
;g LFkkfir fof/k gS fd iqujh{k.k dk mipkj vf/kdkj ds :i esa ugha gSA og izfØ;kRed fof/k gS rFkk izR;sd ekeys dk fofu‘p;u ml le; foHkktu fof/k ds vuqlkj fd;k tkuk gksrk gS ftl le; ‘kfDr iz;qDr dh tkuk gksrh gSA 1986 ts ,y ts 344 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼8½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 1999 && /kkjk 32¼2½ (i)rFkk 12 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 }kjk ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 && dsoy vafre :i ls fuiVk, x, iqujh{k.k O;ko`Ùk gS && yafcr ekeys O;ko`Ùk ugha gSA
iwoksZDr mica/k }kjk dsoy ogh vafrer% fuiVk;k x;k iqujh{k.k izHkkfor ugha gksxkA ftls bl la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e ds izo`Ùk gksus ls iwoZ fofuf‘pr dj fn;k x;k gSA fo/kku&eaMy dk vk‘k; ;g gS fd lHkh yafcr ekeys la‘kksf/kr mica/k }kjk fofu;fer gksaxsA 1986 ts ,y ts 344 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13À
1. This order will decide Civil Revision Nos. 202/2000 (Sawal Singh v. Smt. Ramsakhi and others), 28612002 (Anokhi Lal v. Surendra Kumar and others) and 388/2002 (Leela Bai v. Lottan and others) involving same question of law. The facts of the cases are as under:
Civil Revision No. 202/2000.
The applicant has filed present revision challenging the order dated 18.1.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Khurai, Distt. Sagar in Civil M.A. No. 19/99 by which appeal filed by plaintiffs-respondents under Order 43 rule 1 of CPC was allowed and temporary injunction issued against the applicant during the pendency of the suit.
Civil Revision No. 286/2002
This applicant has challenged the order passed by First Civil Judge Class 2, Khandwa, in Civil Suit No. 170-A/99 by which application filed by non-applicants-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed and plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint. This revision was filed on 6.2.2002 and admitted on 9.4.2002.
Civil Revision No. 388/2002
In this revision the order passed by the Court below by which application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court and appeal filed by the applicant under Order 43 rule 1 CPC was also dismissed, is impugned.
The batch of revisions has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to 'the Code'). Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999), and has come into force on 1st July, 2002 by Notification dated 6th June,. 2002. Now, the amended section is as under:
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 proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suitor 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 proceedings.
Prior to 1.7.2002, the provisions read as under:
115. Revision -- The High Court may call for the record of any cases 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:
(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for the revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; or
(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against wh
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
