Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1564 (RAJ)

Nirmal Singh : Ummaid Kumar v. Ummaid Kumar

2002-09-09

B.S.CHAUHAN

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant reivison has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.5.2002 by which the application of the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 8-A CPC has been rejected. 2. Whatever may be merits of the case, the admitted position remains that w.e.f. 1.7.2002, the provisions of O.8. R.8-A stood deleted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999. Under Section 32 R.2(2) of the said Amendment Act, there is no clause saving any such proceedings. Thus, in absence of any such provision, it is difficult to entertain the revision petition for the reason that even if it is allowed, the Court cannot direct the learned trial Court to proceed after entertaining the application under O.8 R.8-A CPC. 3. The Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law. (vide Union of India & Ann v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 453 ; State of U.P. & ors. v. Harish Chandra & ors., (1996) 9 SCC 309 ; and Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad & ors., v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra & ors., (1997) 10 SCC 264 ). 4. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Renuka Singla & ors., (1994) 1 SCC 175 , dealing with a similar situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations." 5. Similarly, in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan & ors., JT 2002 (2) SC 113 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and not pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injected by law." 6. Such an issue was elaborately dealt with by this Court in Smt. Nirmala v. Aasu Ram, S.B.C. Revision Petition No. 355/2002, decided on 2.9.2002 . 7. Thus, in view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition stands accordingly dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******