Beni Madho Misra vs Budha Dev Bazaz and Others

Satish Chandra, J.—Aggrieved against the order rejecting an application u/s 7-C of the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947, the applicant tiled a revision. The same was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable. The learned District Judge relies on the decision in Har Prasad Singh v. Ram Swarup 1973 AWR 241. The Full Bench construed Section 115 of the CPC as amended by Section 6 of U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 which provided:

The High Court in cases arising out of original suits of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, and the District Court in any other case may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be 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 or the District Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.

One of the questions raised before the Full Bench was as to the significance of the phrase ''any other case'' occurring in the clause ''District Court in any other ease may call for the record of any case.'' it was held by the Full Bench that:

The third question poses a queer conundrum.... But to my mind, that would be, again if I may use the expression, "the lesser evil and I would prefer it to the other.

Subsequently, the Legislature by Section 2 of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 19 of 1973 provided:

Substitution of new section for Section 115. For Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the said Code), the following Section shall be substituted namely-

Revision. The High Court in cases arising out of original suits of the value of rupees twenty thousand and above including such suits instituted before the 20th day of September, 1972, and the District Court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit instituted before the 20th day of September, 1972, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court, subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be, 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 or the District Court, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.

Provided that in respect of cases decided before the 20th day of September 1972, and also all cases arising out of original suits of any valuation decided by the District Court, the High Court, alone shall be competent to make an order under this section.

In view of Section 1(3) of the Amending Act, this section came into force on 20th September, 1972. Thus, the amendment took effect on that date. That was the date when U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 came into force. The result, therefore, is that the amendment introduced by 1973 Act is retrospective so as to completely nullify the amendment introduced in Section 115 of the CPC by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972. In the amended section the relevant clause is "and the District Court in any case, including a case arising out of an original suit, instituted before the 20th day of September 1972." Thus, it is clear that the revisional jurisdiction of the District Court extends not only to cases arising out of an original suit instituted before the 20th day of September, 1972, but also to such original suits instituted after that date, but which are of the value less than Rs. 20,000/-. The District Court''s revisional jurisdiction would also cover cases arising out of proceedings other than original suits. In substance the phrase ''in any other case'' has now been enlarged to including proceedings which may he initiated not in the form of a plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case the learned Munsif Etawah decided a miscellaneous case u/s 7-C of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. It is clearly a case falling within the purview of in any other case'' occurring in amended Section 115.

The revision filed by the applicant was maintainable. The learned District Judge was in error in dismissing the same as non-maintainable.

In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the District Judge for disposal of the revision in accordance with law. The parties may, however, bear their own costs.