Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 88 (MP)

Abdul Hussain H. M. Hussain v. Hatim Ali

2003-01-15

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2003
JUDGMENT This revision petition has been preferred by the applicants-defendants against the order dated 6.5.2000 passed by X Additional District Judge, Indore in civil suit No. 49-B/1999 by which application of amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiffs has been allowed. This revision petition was filed on 18.7.2000. During the pendency of revision section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short CPC) has been amended vide act No. 46/1999 with effect from 1.7.2002. The amended section 115 reads as under : Revision 115 -- (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 proceedings, 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. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court. Explanation :-- In this section the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. On going through the amended section 115 CPC it would reveal that the revisional jurisdiction is available against the order deciding finally the suit or other proceedings, where no appeal is provided and where order in the revision could finally dispose of the suit and other proceedings. On going through the amended section 115 CPC it would reveal that the revisional jurisdiction is available against the order deciding finally the suit or other proceedings, where no appeal is provided and where order in the revision could finally dispose of the suit and other proceedings. On going through the amended provision, the revisional jurisdiction can not be exercised against other orders passed in the course of suit or proceeding and the pending revisions shall also be decided accordingly. See Sawal Singh v. Smt. Ramsakhi and, others 2002 (2) JLJ 201 = 2002 (II) MPJR 169 . Shri M.G. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the disposal of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC would mean disposal of a separate proceeding. If such an interpretation is accepted, then, the disposal of each and every application would amount to the disposal of separate proceeding. This interpretation can not be accepted from any angle of law. The term proceeding would mean the proceedings which are separately registered as Miscellaneous judicial case. It can not be construed widely, see Narsingh @ Nathu Singh and Another v. Pyare Singh and Another 2002 (II) MPJR 165 . Shri M.G. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the case Hanuman Daft and others v. State of M.P. and others 2002 (4) MPLJ, 354 and submitted that the present revision is maintainable. I have given anxious consideration on the ratio laid down in the case of Hanuman Daft (supra), this case is distinguishable because in that case an application for temporary injunction was decided and an appeal was preferred under Order 43 Role 1 CPC and the revision was filed against the appellate order. Hence, the case of Hanuman Datt, (supra) is clearly distinguishable. Resultantly, the revision is held to be not maintainable and is hereby dismissed accordingly. The applicants are however, free to challenge the impugned order at appropriate stage and at appropriate forum.