Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 139 (MP)

Ashok Gehani v. Sushil Kumar Dhanwani

2007-02-06

S.C.SINHO

body2007
ORDER 1. This revision u/s 115 of CPC is filed against the order dated 22.7.2006 passed by the District Judge, Bhopal in MJC No. 126/06 by which application of applicants u/s. 24 of CPC for transferring the suits pending in different Courts in anyone Court was rejected. 2. The case of the applicant is that he has purchased a plot No. 78 (new No. 28) situated at Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) alongwith structure except shops No.2 and 5 by registered sale deed dated 7.5.2004. The building is more than 40 years old and is in dilapidated condition. The Municipal Corporation, Bhopal respondent No.7 issued notice on 5.8.2004 u/s. 310 (1) of the Municipal Corporation Act to each of the tenants of the building to leave the premises or to carry out the repair of the same with the permission of the Corporation. Respondents No.2 and 4 filed separate suit as owners of two shops and respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 as tenant for permanent injunction restraining the Corporation to take any action in view of the notice dated 5.8.2004 and further to restrain the Corporation from causing any damage to the disputed property. The applicant, therefore, filed an application before the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for impleading him as defendant but the same was rejected and it was directed that if the applicants have any vested right in the suit property they can file a separate suit. Therefore, applicants filed separate suit for declaration that parties are bound to comply with the notice issued by the Corporation and for injunction restraining respondent from causing any obstruction in action of the Municipal Corporation before Additional District Judge which is registered as Civil Suit No. 1-A/06 whereas other two suits are pending in the Court of Civil Judges. 3. Applicants submitted an application u/s. 24 of the CPC that the subject matter of the suit filed by respondent in the Court of III Civil Judge, Bhopal and that of the suit filed by the applicants in the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal is one and the same therefore all suits pending in different Courts be transferred in anyone Court for trying them together so that there may not be conflicting decrees passed by different Courts which was rejected by impugned order. 4. 4. Shri Ramesh Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.5 has argued that this revision is not maintainable. 5. First I will examine whether the revision is maintainable. It would be useful to refer to the relevant provision of sub-section (1) of section 115 of CPC which are 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.] (In view of amendment with effect from 1.7.2002). 6. No order can be passed in Civil Revision except where the order if it has been made in favour of the party applying for a revision would have finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding. Therefore, the revision would only lie against such interlocutory order which would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding and no revision would lie against any interlocutory order which would not finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding. Therefore, this revision is not maintainable against the impugned order dated 22.7.2006 passed by the District Judge. 7. As the revision petition in this case is directed against the interlocutory order even if it is allowed, the suit shall not be finally disposed of. Therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable under the section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. 7. As the revision petition in this case is directed against the interlocutory order even if it is allowed, the suit shall not be finally disposed of. Therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable under the section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Moreover, the District Judge has rightly held that two civil suits filed by respondents are pending in Court of Civil Judge since 2004 whereas applicant's civil suit is pending before the Additional District Judge since 2006 on this ground it will not proper that all suits should be transferred in one Court, pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge and Additional District Judge is also not same. 9. The impugned order dated 22.7.2006 passed by the District Judge, hopal in MJC No. 126/06 does not suffer from any material irregularity. Accordingly, the revision fails and is dismissed. No orders as to costs.