1989 Supreme(MP) 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. AWASTHY, J.
Lali Bai - Applicant
Vs.
Gula Bai - Respondents
C.R. No. 125 of 1987 (J)
Decided On : 02-02-1989

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 115 (amended) – subject matter of suit Rs. 40,000/ – District Judge heard the appeal – revision lies before the High Court.

        Short Note

       1. One Kabruram died on 29 – 9 – 80, leaving behind him a sum of Rs. 40,000/ – in his account under the custody and control of Superintendent of Police, Surguja. The applicants (herein) presented a petition under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of a succession certificate in their favour, for withdrawing the said amount. One Gulabai also claimed to be the legally married wife of Kabruram. Hence, she was made a non – applicant in those proceedings. The trial Court granted succession certificate is favour of the applicants (herein). The non – applicant Gulabai, being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Surguja under section 384 of the Indian Succession Act. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the trial Court. Hence, this revision.

       2. The learned counsel for the non – applicant took a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this civil revision under section 388 (3) read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The argument of the learned counsel for the non – applicant is that the order of the District Judge not being a case arising out of original suit for other proceedings, shall not be revisable under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

       Held : The High Court has revisory power only in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above including such suits or other proceedings instituted even before the date the amended provision of S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was brought into force. The entire residuary area belongs to the District Court. In cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings whenever decided by the District Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section (S. 115 C.P.C.).

       3. In the case of Chhagan Lal, (AIR 1977 SC 1555), the Supreme Court has also held that "under S. 115 of the C.P.C. the High Court has got a power to revise the order passed by Courts subordinate to it. It cannot be disputed that the District Court is a subordinate Court and is liable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.” In the case of Ramchandra (1986 JLJ 344) it has been observed that "in the absence of any express provision to the contrary, in the amending Act supervisory or revisional power under section 115 Civil Procedure Code, has to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of law in force at the time when the power is sought to be exercised. It therefore, follows that after 14 – 8 – 1984 when the Amending Act 29 of 1984 came into force, the High Court is empowered to exercise only such powers as are conferred on the High Court by the provisions of section 115 Civil Procedure Code as amended. In this view of the matter, we do not see any cogent reason to differ from the view taken in the Division Bench decisions of this Court in civil revision No. 6 of 1985 (Pirbux v. Babulal), (1986 MPLJ 720) and in civil revision No. 942 of 1984 (Gayaprasad and another v. Deepchand and another). As the revision petition in the instant case is directed against an order passed by a district Court in appeal, arising out of a suit of the value of less than twenty thousand rupees, it is not maintainable under section 115, Civil Procedure Code."

       4. In the case of Sri Vishnu Awatar (AIR 1980 SC 1575) it has been held in para 13 of the Judgment that if the decision sought to be challenged in revision is in a case arising out of a suit of the valuation of Rs. 20,000/ – and more, the High Court has revisory power, but if the suit from which the case arises and is which the decision is made is one where the valuation is less than Rs. 20,000/ – then the litigation cannot travel beyond the District Court except in that class of cases where the decision is taken for the first time by the District Court itself in a case arising out of an original proceeding. It was further observed that "where the District Judge disposed of an appeal and the revision to the High Court was directed against the appellate order, the subject matter of the suit being below Rs. 20,000/ – in valuation, the High Court was right in refusing to exercise any – revisional power". Since the claim here was for Rs. 40,000/ – in the original Court and in the appeal, in my opinion, the revision is tenable under the law. 1986 MPLJ 720, AIR 1977 SC 1555, AIR 1980 SC 1575 and 1986 JLJ 344 relied on. Objection overruled.