AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 354 wordsJ.K. Mathue, J.—This revision is directed against the order passed by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Hardoi in Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1990, rejecting the application for amendment. On behalf of the opposite party the maintainability of the revision was challenged.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
On behalf of the opposite party, it was urged that under Section 115 CPC, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, the revision can be maintained in High Court only in respect of the cases arising out of the original suit the value of which is Rs. 20.000/ and above, unless the suit is being tried by the District Court. It was urged that no revision is maintainable against the order passed in exercise of the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. For this process, reliance was placed on a full bench decision of this Court in M/s. Jupiter Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. v. Dwarkadhish Dayal, AIR 1979 Alld., 218.
Relying on the earlier full bench decision in Har Prasad Siagh v. Ram Swaroop, 1973 All LJ 343, it was held that the revision cannot be maintained against an order passed in appeal or revision. This decision has been followed in Ganga Sharan v. Civil Judge, another full bench decision of this Court (1991 LCD 149). This decision also considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamruddin v. Rasool Bux and another (1989, LCD, 534) and held that this decision did not overrule the full bench decision of this Court which was approved by the Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, AIR 1980, Supreme Court 892 and in Vishnu Avatar v. Shiv Avtar (1980 Supreme Court, 1575).
In the aforesaid case of Vishesh Kumar also it has been held that no revision can lie against the revisional order of the District Court under Section 115, CPC as amended in Uttar Pradesh.
In view of the above, no revision would be maintainable against the order passed in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by the District Court under Section 115 CPC. The revision is, therefore, not maintainable and is dismissed.
Revision dismissed.