Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2952 (MAD)

Accounts Officer v. V. K. Seshu Naicker

2017-08-31

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. As far as the merits involved in the matter, in my considered opinion, it is unnecessary to go into the same as the civil revision petition could be disposed of on another aspect. 2. Challenging the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.07.2002, passed in A.S.No.44 of 2001, on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 26.06.2001, passed in O.S.No.185 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 3. The suit has been laid by the respondent / plaintiff against the petitioners / defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit ended in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the petitioners / defendants also came to be dismissed. 4. Inasmuch as the Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Court are challenged, it is found that only second appeal would lie and not the revision. However, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants that inasmuch as the value of the suit is less than Rs.25,000/-, no second appeal would lie and only revision would lie. However, it is found that the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. The said provision cannot be made applicable to the present lis. As seen above, the suit had been laid not for recovery of money and on the other hand, it had been laid for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. In such view of the matter, irrespective of the value of the suit, the challenge to the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court is to be made only by way of the second appeal and not by way of the revision. Therefore, it is found that the invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not applicable to the case at hand and thus, it is found that the civil revision petition is not maintainable. 5. Therefore, it is found that the invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not applicable to the case at hand and thus, it is found that the civil revision petition is not maintainable. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants is unable to substantiate with any authority that the revision is maintainable against the suits of the above nature, if the value of the same is below Rs.25,000/-. 6. In the light of the above discussions, I hold that the civil revision petition is not maintainable as per law. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.