The amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limited the High Court's revisional jurisdiction to cases arising out of original suits or proceedings valued at twenty thousand rupees and above, had retrospective effect and applied to all revisions after the date it came into force, i.e., 14-8-1984.

( 1. ) THE following question has been referred to this Bench for decision: "whether in case of an order passed in an original suit or other proceedings of the value of less than Rs. 20,000/- before 14-8-1984 by any of the Courts of Subordinate judges, i. e. , other than the Court of the District Judge, a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure can lie to the High Court after 14-8-1984 or whether the District Judges concerned have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such revision petition?"

( 2. ) IT is in the following manner that the above question has been referred.

2. 01. By the Code of Civil Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1984, m. P. Act No. 29 of 1984 (for short hereinafter called the Act) which came into force with effect from 14th August 1984, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act has been amended and substituted by the following section : "4. For section 115 of the Principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, nemely: -"115. The High Court, in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, and the district Judge 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 Judge, 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 or with material irregularity; the High Court or the District Judge, as the case may be, make such order in the case as it think fit: provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation, decided by the District Judge, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section : provided further that the High Court or the District Judge shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where, - (i) The order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding; (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom if was made. Explanation - In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding. "

2. 02. On reading the fore-extracted amended section 115 of the Principal Act, it is evident that only in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above revisions are maintainable under this section before the High Court. To put it differently, the revisions arising out of suits or other proceedings which are of the valuation below twenty thousand rupees, would not lie before the High Court. In the unamended section of the Principal Act, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was not circumscribed by the valuation of the suit or other proceedings out of which the revisions arose.

2. 03. In the present revisions, which arise out of the suits instituted prior to the amendment in section 115 of the Principal Act and were filed on or after 14-8-1984, it was contended on behalf of the applicants that the amendment does not take away the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of such revisions. This contention was based on the submission that the right of revision is nothing short of the right of appeal and is, as such, a substantive right and, therefore, the amendment cannot be given a retrospective effect to curtail or take away that right. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, this being a question of general importance, referred the above question.

2. 04. On the analysis of the question, two