CHITTARANJAN CROCHET PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. LAKSHMONI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) Heard counsel on both sides.

(3.) The question which the High court was required to decide was whether application for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed along with an appeal could survive after the appeal was disposed of as not pressed and withdrawn. It appears from the order of the High court that there prevailed a practice (in the event of a doubt) to file an appeal as well as a revision Application and ordinarily both the appeal and the revision were placed for disposal before one and the same court at the same time, so that the question of jurisdiction may recede in the background. In the present case, however, it is evident that before the revision application came up for hearing, the appeal was disposed of for want of prosecution as withdrawn. The attempt to revive the appeal failed. The present appellants had made an application for being impleaded as parties but no order was passed on their application since the appeal was not restored to file. The revision application was, however, dismissed on the High court taking the view that on the dismissal of the appeal the decree had merged in the High court order and, therefore, the revision could not be entertained. The exact observations of the High court in this behalf are as under: