GREGORY PERES Vs. EIGAN ALEXANDER SALINS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has gained access to this court under Section 115 Cr. P. C. assailing the order dated 02-02-2010 in M.A. No. 45/2009 on the file of the II Addl. Civil judge (Sr. Dvn.)/ Mangalore, D. K., confirming the order dated 15.12.2009 in 0.5. No. 843/2009 on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Mangalore, allowing I.A. No. II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction. The petition has come up for final hearing and I have heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) The contextual facts are:

(3.) Learned counsel, Mr. Rego for M/s. Rego and Rego, adverting to the factual matrix and the grounds it had taken before the trial court and appellate court, would submit that both the orders are unsustainable in law and are revisable by this court in exercise of revisional power under Section 115, C.P.C. He would submit the plaint averments make it clear that the respondent-plaintiff had sought relief under the provisions of the Act and therefore, he could file the application for grant of relief about his grievance only before the court conferred with jurisdiction to adjudicate the said application and not any other court. In this regard, he would submit the grievance of the respondent-plaintiff is about disconnection of water supply and electricity to his apartment as provided under Section 13 of the Act and therefore, as provided under sub-section (5) (a) of Section 13, the suit had to be filed in the Court of Small Causes, or in the Court of Civil Judge as referred to in clause (b), and not before the Civil Judge (Junior Division). He has referred to Sections 12 and 13 of the Act to bring home this point.