Vairavelu Mudaliar vs A. Guruswami

Srinivasan, J.—The revision petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the District Judge,

North Arcot at Vollore in C.R.P. No. 8 of 1988. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1275/- due on an oral lease entered into

by the petitioner on 18.2.1972. The petitioner raised several contentions. He pleaded that he had paid a sum of Rs. 1275/- even at the

commencement of the lease before tapping toddy from the trees which were leased to him. He also raised a plea that the contract stood revoked

by the conduct of the plaintiff and the latter was not entitled to recover any money from the petitioner here. The trial court framed five issues and

after considering the evidence on record granted the decree in favour of the respondent over ruling the contentions of the petitioner herein.

There was an appeal by the petitioner which ended in his favour. The respondent filed a second appeal in this Court in S.A. No. 1409 of 1980.

By judgment dated 12.10.1987 this Court allowed the second appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The contention which was

accepted by this Court in the Second Appeal was that the appeal before the lower appellate court might not be maintainable in view of the

provisions of S.96(4) of the CPC and that the said question of maintainability was not considered by the lower appellate court. Consequently, this

Court directed the lower appellate court to consider the question of maintainability of the appeal under S.96(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

After remand, the District Judge took the view the appeal was not maintainable, but a revision could be entertained by the District Court under

S.96(4) of the CPC and he directed the party to convert it into a revision petition. Thus, the petitioner herein filed C.R.P. No. 8 of 1988 under

S.96(4) of the CPC r/w. Order 41, Rule 1, C.P.C.

It is very unfortunate that a District Judge was not conversant with the provisions of S.96(4) of the Civil Procedure Code. Under that provision

a first appear under S.96 of the CPC against a decree is not maintainable except on a question of law if the suit is of the nature cognizable by a

Court of Small Causes when the amount of value of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 3,000/-. If the District Judge had taken the view that

there is no question of law, he should have rejected the appeal on that ground holding that no appeal was maintainable because of S.96(4) of the

Civil Procedure Code. Curiously he took the view that a revision could be entertained by the District Court by virtue of the provisions of S.96(4)

of the Civil Procedure Code. There is no warrant for such a view. The only provision under which a revision could be filed under the CPC is

S.115 Under that Section a revision will lie only to the High Court and not to any other subordinate court including the District Court. The District

Judge had not familiarised himself with the provisions of S.115of the CPC or S.96(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Strangely, the successor District Judge did not also take note of the relevant provisions referred to above. When the revision petition came up

for hearing before him he proceeded to her the same as if the revision was maintainable. He ought to have reconvened the papers holding that a

revision petition was not maintainable in the District Court and directed the party to approach this Court under S.115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(sic) heard the revision on merits and (sic).

No (sic) Purpose would be served by my (sic) aside the order of the District Judge and (sic) the party to (sic) a revision petition (sic) Court

against the decree and judgment (sic) court. That will consume (sic) time (sic) to an application for consideration of (sic) which will have to be

considered by this Court.

I have gone through the judgment of the trial court and also the judgment of the District Court, I find that there is no merit in the case of the

petitioner. The trial court has considered the entire evidence on (sic) a finding of fact that the case of the petitioners is not true. The Court has held

that the petitioner did not pay a sum of Rs. 1275/- as contended by him before the commencement of the lease. I find that there is no justification

for the complaint of the petitioner made before the District Court that necessary issues were not framed by the trial court. All the issues which arise

on the pleadings were framed and they were considered by the trial court.

I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the judgment of the trial court. There is no dispute that the trial court had jurisdiction to dispose of the

suit. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the judgment of the trial court. Hence, no revision can be accepted under S.115 of the CPC

against the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner having filed a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I will now consider whether the order of the District Judge in

C.R.P. No. 8 of 1988 is correct on the facts of the case. I have already referred to the technical defect in the order and I have also given the

reason as to why I am not setting aside that order on that technical ground by directing the party to file a revision under S. 115 of the Civil

Procedure Code.

The order of the District Judge considers once again the evidence on record. Though it is styled as a revision petition, the District Judge has

dealt with the matter as a first appeal and considered the entire evidence on record. He has come to the same conclusion. I do not find any merit in

the case of the petitioner. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.