Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1557 (PAT)

Belsund Sugar Company Ltd. v. Purushottam Hisariya

2012-11-08

JYOTI SARAN

body2012
ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 20.04.2009 passed by learned Sub Judge-1, Sitamarhi in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1989, whereby the learned court below has been pleased to allow the application filed by the opposite party nos. 1 to 6 on contest as also holding them entitled for recovery of possession. 3. It is not in dispute rather is self eloquent from the order impugned that the Miscellaneous application in question was filed under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Section 151 thereof. An application filed under Rule 99 of Order 21 of the Code requires to be adjudicated by the court concerned in terms of the provisions of Rule 100 and 101 thereof. Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code further provides that any adjudication on an application so made and decided under Rule 100, is appealable as a decree. 4. In view of the statutory provisions referred to above, the present Civil Revision application is not maintainable before this Court. 5. Although Mr. Prasad, learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 10.08.2009 passed by a Bench of this Court holding the revision maintainable but a perusal thereof manifests that this aspect of the matter was never brought to the notice of the court leading to the said observation. 6. Regard being had to the circumstances and in view of the statutory provisions of Rule 103 of Order 21, this Civil Revision application not being maintainable is disposed of affording liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to him under the Code. It goes without saying that any such appeal being filed by the petitioner alongwith an application for condonation of delay shall be considered and be disposed of on its own merits in accordance with law by the court concerned taking into consideration the pendency of the matter before this Court.