Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 705 (PNJ)

Kanwaljit Singh v. Amarjit Singh

2002-07-23

AMAR DUTT

body2002
ORDER Amar Dutt, J. - In a suit for possession by way of specific performance, the petitioners have moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") for additional evidence, which was rejected. 2. The petitioners, who were dis-satisfied with the impugned order passed on 8.4.1999, had come up in this revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently tried to argue that the circumstances in which the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code has been filed, are not sufficient to justify the relief granted to the respondents. While making this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners loses sight of the fact that through the amendment in sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code, the provisions of Section 115 of the Code have been amended 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 suit or other proceedings." 5. As a result of the amendment, Sub-Clause (b) as it stood prior to the amendment has been omitted and it is no longer possible for this Court to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that this Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it. 6. Admittedly, in case an adverse order had not been passed on the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code then the suit would not have been disposed of finally. 6. Admittedly, in case an adverse order had not been passed on the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code then the suit would not have been disposed of finally. In view of this, when seen in the light of the amended proviso, it would not be possible for this Court to grant any relief to the petitioners. This revision consequently has to fail and is dismissed with the observation that it shall be open to the petitioners to challenge the validity of the impugned order in appeal that they may file against the judgment and decree that may be passed in the suit as provided under Order 43 Rule 1-A of the Code. Revision dismissed.