Dr. Naim Uddin alias Naim Ahmad vs District Judge and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, Etah in Misc. Case No. 198 of 2004 whereby the District Judge, has refused to entertain the revision u/s 115, C.P.C. against an order passed by Munsif u/s 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act). Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. The Manager, Purchase, Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and Another, wherein learned single Judge of this Court has held that no revision u/s 115 of the CPC lies against an order passed u/s 30 of the Act.

In this view of the matter, since no revision lies as held by this Court in the decision of Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. The Manager, Purchase, Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and Another, , this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon another decision of this Court in St. Jones School Vs. Spl. Judge, E.C. Act and another, , wherein learned single Judge relying upon earlier judgments of this Court has held that a revision will lie. Since the judgment of Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. The Manager, Purchase, Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and Another, is later judgment, therefore, according to the principle of precedent, later judgment will prevail if the same is passed by jurisdiction of Coordinate Bench.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order passed by the District Judge. Apart from learned counsel for the petitioner could not point any provision of the Act under which revision lies against the order passed u/s 30 of the Act. The Munsif does not exercise the power of civil court under the provisions of either C.P.C., or Bengal, Assam, Agra Civil Court Act.

In this view of the matter also, this order passed by the District Judge, do not warrant any interference by this Court.

The writ petition is dismissed.