Kaliamurthy vs Viswanathan

Nainar Sundaram, J.—The matter comes up regarding maintainability of the proposed revision under S. 115. C.P.C. hereinafter referred to

as the Code against the order passed by the District Judge, West Tanjore in C.R.P. 1 of 1984. The C.R.P. No. 1 of 1984 was a revision

preferred by the petitioner under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 9 of 1887, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as substituted by

Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1982, against the judgment and decree in S.G.S. 42 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru. The office of

this Court has raised an objection that after the revision under S. 25 of the Act against the judgment and decree the Small Cause suit, there could

not be a further revision to this Court under S. 115 of the Code. S. 25 of the Act as it stands substituted in this State by Tamil Nadu Act 32 of

1982 reads as follows--

Revision of decrees and orders of courts of small causes--The District Judge, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made

in any case decided by a court of Small Causes is according to law, may of his own motion or on the application of an aggrieved party, made

within thirty days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit:

Provided that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of

Small Causes, the power of revision under this section shall vest in the High Court.

S. 25 of the Act, without reference to its substitution by Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1982 states that the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself

that a decree or order made in any case decided by Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with

respect thereto as it thinks fit. The substitution of S. 25 by Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1982, has confined the revisional powers of the High Court only

to cases decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge, exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes. Otherwise, the

revisional powers with regard to decrees and orders of courts of Small Causes are conferred on the District Judge. S. 27 of the Act reads as

follows--

Save as provided by this Act a decree or order made under the foregoing provisions of this Act by a court of Small Causes shall be final.

When the revisional jurisdiction by the District Judge, as per S. 25 of the Act, as it stands substituted, in its application to this State is exhausted,

the order or decree of the Court of Small Causes as per the decision in that revision must become final as per S. 27 of the Act. The Act has been

considered to be a self-sufficient Code and with regard to matters covered by the Act, one has to resort to only the remedies provided by the Act.

Otherwise, the intendment of the Legislature in enacting S. 27 of the Act would stand defeated. To say that in spite of S. 27 of the Act, the

revisional) power of the High Court under S. 115 of the Code could still be invoked over orders passed in revision by the District Judge, as per S.

25 of the Act, as substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1982, would be advancing a proposition completely defeating the conclusive and

comprehensive working of the remedies under the Act. The only power of revision available to the High Court is pursuant to the proviso to S. 25

of the Act, as substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1982. Similar provision stands substituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh and considering the

said provision, the Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar Vs. Shanti Prasad, , traced the scope of the provisions of the Act and opined that the Act is

a self-sufficient Code and it is not possible to proceed outside the Act to avail of a superior remedy, provided by another statute. The Supreme

Court held that the revisional order of the District Court under S. 25 of the Act, as substituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh is not amenable to the

revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 115 of the Code. The Supreme Court overruled in this regard the decision of the High Court of

Allahabad in Bimla Rani Kohli Vs. Bandu Motor Finance Private Ltd., . In the light of the above discussion, I have to hold that the proposed

revision is not maintainable and accordingly the same is rejected.