Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1845 (RAJ)

Uttam Chand v. Gulab Chand Narendra Kumar

2012-08-27

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this revision petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.11.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Pali in Civil Appeal No. 03/2008 whereby the appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) No. 1, Pali in Civil Original Case No. 143/2005 (3/06), by which, the suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of sum of Rs. 10,000/- was dismissed. 2. Initially, the petitioner preferred second appeal before this Court; but later on, an application was filed under Sec.151 CPC for converting the second appeal into revision petition. The co-ordinate Bench passed an order upon the said application and converted the second appeal as revision petition. 3. Instant revision petition was listed before this Court on 24.7.2012. On that date, a specific query was made how the revision petition is maintainable against the above judgments passed in civil suit and civil appeal respectively by the Courts below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if error of law is committed by both the Courts below and under Section 102 restriction is imposed upon filing second appeal in terms that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. 25000/-, therefore, the only course is left with the petitioner to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court by way of filing revision petition because illegality and perversity can be seen while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. Therefore, this revision petition is maintainable. 5. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment reported in AIR 1968 SC 366 and submits that if no appeal lay, then, revision would be competent and High Court was right in entertaining the revision if the appellate Court below appears to have exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it or it acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited my attention towards (2003) 3 SCC 524 , Sadhna Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and submits that this revision petition is maintainable. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the pleadings of this case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited my attention towards (2003) 3 SCC 524 , Sadhna Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and submits that this revision petition is maintainable. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the pleadings of this case. 7. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115, C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court for recovery of Rs. 10,000/-. Section 102, C.P.C. provides that no second appeal lies from any decree, when the subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. 25,000/-; meaning thereby, although second appeal is permissible but the legislature with open eyes put a restriction under Section 102, C.P.C. so that matter should come to an end, therefore, it is specifically provided that notwithstanding there being appeal provision under Section 100, C.P.C., when the subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. 10,000/-, then, such second appeal shall not lie. In the opinion of this Court, the legislature in its wisdom has curtailed the right of filing second appeal by way of putting above restriction on the point of pecuniary limit of the cause. Therefore, even if any substantial question of law is involved, no second appeal shall lie against the judgment and decree if the initial suit was filed for recovery of money less than Rs. 25,000/-. If it is the intention of the legislature, then, of course, it can be said that petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115, C.P.C. because such invocation of the revisional jurisdiction will render the specific provision of Section 102 to nullity which is not permissible. Under Section 115, C.P.C. the legality and propriety as well as perversity can be seen, so also, while exercising jurisdiction of second appeal the appeal can be admitted upon substantial question of law. Both are peri materia, therefore, a revision petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. is not maintainable. 8. Here, in this case, recovery of suit was filed by the petitioner for Rs. Both are peri materia, therefore, a revision petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. is not maintainable. 8. Here, in this case, recovery of suit was filed by the petitioner for Rs. 10,000/- and second appeal is prohibited or specifically barred under Section 102, C.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be said that no appeal is provided against the judgment thereby invoke jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. because if cases of this nature are allowed to be entertained it would amount to eclipsing Section 102, C.P.C. which specifically aims at ending the litigation in view of the pecuniary quantum involved in the cause. In this view of the matter, this revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is not maintainable. 9. Consequently, this revision petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.