Keora Bai and Another vs Shanti Bai and Another

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard.

This revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 10.12.1996 by which a Misc. Appeal (M.A. No. 25/96) filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) has been dismissed by 7th Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur.

It appears that the aforesaid appeal was filed against the order dated 16.7.1996 passed in Civil Suit No. 184-A/1996 by which an application for temporary inunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. has been

In view of the new amendment in Section 115 of the CPC and also in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court reported in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and Others, ; Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, (Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others), now the position is settled that the civil revisions u/s 115 of the C.P.C. against such orders are not maintainable.

Section 115 CPC, as amended by Act 46 of 1999, does not now permit a revision petition being filed against an order disposing of an appeal against the order of the trial Court whether confirming, reversing or modifying the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. The reason is that the order of the High Court passed either way would not have the effect of finally disposing of the suit or other proceedings. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such a case is taken away by the substitution of the proviso to Section 115 (1) CPC by said Amendment Act 46 of 1999.

Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute this legal position.

In view of the above, this revision stands dismissed as not maintainable.

However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy under the law if such an eventuality arises.

Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to counsel for the applicant after retaining the photocopy of the same if demanded within 15 days from today.

With the above observations, this revision petition stands finally disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.