Hanuman Sahay Sharma vs Additional District Judge and Others

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is found to have impugned the order dated 16.2.2006, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur allowed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed on application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the revision is maintainable under proviso to Section 115 of CPC and this writ petition may be treated as revision.

He has cited one judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Johara Bai & Others Versus Jageshwar and others reported in 2010 (2) CLJ 89 in support thereof.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not object to it. Having perused the judgment of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Johara Bai and others (supra), wherein it is categorically held while placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court that in case an order is passed allowing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, remedy of revision is available to the petitioner in these cases and on the request of the petitioner, writ petition will be converted into revision. The case of the petitioner is found to be squarely covered by the judgment of Johara Bai and Others (supra). Hence, the instant writ petition is ordered to be converted into a revision petition. The revision petition may be listed before the appropriate bench having roaster of the Civil Revision Petitions.