Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2824 (ALL)

Ram Sajeevan Vishwakarma v. Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma

2015-09-09

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioner filed an application in Original Suit No. 507 of 2011 for being impleaded as a party defendant. The application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 10 September 2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision under section 115 CPC before the District Judge, Allahabad. The Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Allahabad by order dated 11 July 2015 returned the memo of revision to the petitioner for being presented before a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Revisional Court has noted that as per office report dated 7 May 2015, in pursuance of the order of the trial Court dated 4 February 2015, the valuaation of the suit has been enhanced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 6.50 lakhs and thus it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the revision. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, rejecting the impleadment application as well as the order of the Revisional Court returning the memo of revision, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. This Court does not find any illegality in the order of the Revisional Court returning the memo of revision. 4. The revision filed by the petitioner before the District Judge, which has now been returned to him for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction has yet not been decided on merits. In such view of the matter, the petitioner has the remedy of filing the revision before the appropriate Court challenging the order of the trial Court rejecting the application for impleadment. Consequently, this Court declines to entertain the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is accordingly dismissed with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to present the memo of revision before the appropriate Court. 5. Certified copies of the documents annexed with this petition, shall be returned to the counsel for the petitioner, in case an application in that regard is moved, after retaining photostat copy on record.