Chhote Lal Singh vs Awadesh Singh and others

Shiv Charan Sharma, J.—Under challenge in this Civil Revision is the judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Pratapgarh in Civil Revision No. 52/1999. Awadhesh Singh and others v. Chhote Lal Singh and others. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 8th January, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No. 70/1997. By the impugned order, learned Appellate, Court decided the Issue No. 3 at the preliminary stage regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. The Revisional Court held that the suit is barred by section 331A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

At the preliminary stage, learned Counsel for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this Civil Revision and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties argued that a second revision is not maintainable to this Court under section 115 C.P.C. and the impugned order challenged in this revision was passed in Civil Revision No. 52/1999. One more objection has also been raised that the present Civil Revision cannot be converted in a writ petition.

On these preliminary objections of learned Counsel for the opposite parties namely Sri P.V. Chaudhary and Sri A.S. Chaudhary, Advocates, I have heard Sri B.P. Singh. Advocate for the revisionist and perused the entire material on record.

From a perusal of the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2004, it is evident that this judgment and order was passed by the Revisional Court in the revision and learned Counsel for the opposite parties argued that against the judgment and order of the Revisional Court, a second revision is not maintainable in the High Court and in support of his contention, learned Counsel for the opposite parties cited Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad 1980 (6) ALR 233 (SC) Hon''ble Apex Court in the said case held that:

"It seems to us that to recognize a revisional power in the High Court over a revisional order passed by the District Judge would plainly defeat the object of the legislative scheme. The intent behind the bifurcation of jurisdiction to reduce the number of revision petitions filed in the High Court would be frustrated. The scheme would, in large measure, lose its meaning. If a revision petition is permitted to the High Court against the revisional order of the District Judge arising out of a suit of a value less than Rs. 20,000/, a fundamental contradiction would be allowed to invade and destroy the division of revisional power between the High Court and the District Court, for the High Court would then enjoy jurisdictional power in respect of an order arising out of a suit of a valuation below Rs. 20,000/. That was never intended at all."

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case further held that:

"The valuation of the suit is irrelevant. But the proviso cannot be construed to include the case of a revisional order passed by the District Court, for that would be in direct conflict with the fundamental structure itself of section 115 evidencing that a mutually exclusive jurisdiction has been assigned to the High Court and the District Court within its terms. A proviso cannot be permitted by construction to defeat the basic intent expressed in the substantive provision. Har Prasad Singh (supra) and Phoohvati (supra) were considered by a Full Bench of the High Court in Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Divarka Diesh Dayal 1979 (5) ALR 380 and, in our judgment, the High Court rightly laid down there that the phrase "case arising out of an original suit" occurring in section 115 does not cover orders passed in revision.

We are of opinion on the first question that the High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, over a revisional order made by the District Court under that section.

Hence, this is a direct judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court on the matter in controversy and a definite judgment has been delivered that no revision is maintainable in the High Court against the order passed by the District Judge under section 115 C.P.C. and this argument of learned Counsel for the opposite parties is justified that a second revision is not maintainable in this Court.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist has not shown any law contrary to it. There can be no reason to dispute this settled position of law and the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court is the law of land. Hence, I am of the opinion that a second revision is not maintainable in this Court whereas the revisionist has filed a second revision in this Court after the judgment and order of the Revisional Court dated 22nd December, 2004 passed in Civil Revision No. 52/1999.

It has also been argued by Learned Counsel for the opposite parties that even this revision cannot be permitted to be converted as writ petition and the Hon''ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgment has laid down that a revision cannot be permitted to be converted in a writ petition. In this context, Hon''ble the Apex Court held that:

"It has been urged by the appellant in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad (Civil Appeal No. 2844 of 1979) that in case this Court is of the opinion that a revision petition under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, is not maintainable, the case should be remitted to the High Court for consideration as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are unable to accept that prayer. A revision petition under section 115 is a separate and distinct proceeding from a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and one cannot be identified with the other."

Hence, in view of this position of law of the Hon''ble Apex Court, even this revision cannot be converted as a writ petition. Although, there is no prayer on behalf of the revisionist to treat this revision as a writ petition, but even then, if this prayer is made, then the same cannot be accepted.

For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court, this Civil revision is not maintainable in this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed with these preliminary objections of learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

The Civil Revision is dismissed accordingly.

Revision Dismissed.