Nekshu vs Bakse Ram

Satish Chandra, C.J.—This revision is directed against an order passed by the Addl. District Judge dismissing an appeal which, in its turn, was directed against a Small Cause Court suit decreed for recovery of money by the learned Munsif.

Normally a second appeal would lie to this Courts but a second appeal was barred because of Section 102 CPC consequently this revision has been filed u/s 115 Code of Civil Procedure. Previously Section 115 CPC conferred revisional jurisdiction on the High Court against any case decided by a court subordinate to it. Section 3 of the CPC (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1978 repealed and re-enacted Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure. Under the provision as re-enacted, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was confined to cases of a valuation of more than Rs. 20,000/-. In other class of cases, the district court was vested with the revisional jurisdiction. Under the proviso, the High Court had jurisdiction u/s 115 in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation decided by the district court. Such proceedings would be those which are initially instituted in a court subordinate to the district court but were transferred to the district court for trial. The scheme of the amended Section 115 was to confer revision jurisdiction on the High Court in respect of decisions of the district court as a court of first instance.

This was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad 1980 AWC 263 . In that case it was remarked that the proviso cannot be construed to include the case of a revisional order passed by the District Judge because that would be in direct conflict with Section 115 evidencing that a mutually exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred. Revisional jurisdiction is part of the appellate jurisdiction. See Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, . Hence the proviso, on a parity of reasoning, will not apply to an appellate order as well.

The fact that a second appeal is barred by Section 102 CPC is neither material nor relevant. The revisional jurisdiction has been conferred by Section 115 CPC and if under it a revision is not maintainable, it cannot be entertained because Section 102 CPC bars a second appeal.

In my opinion, this revision is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.