Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 649 (MP)

Narsingh @ Nathu Singh v. Pyare Singh

2002-07-11

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2002
ORDER 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. 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 should be made in the light of the intention of Legislature. The said interpretation cannot be made by reading a single word in isolation. 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 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 will have 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 proceeding. Thus, it is clear that intention of the Legislature is to bar revision against any interlocutory order. 10. Thus, this revision, which is filed challenging the order passed I on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 arid 2, CPC, is not maintainable and this revision is dismissed.