V B NAYAK Vs. S R NARASIMHA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in these two civil revision petitions is the plaintiff and the respondents in these petitions are the defendants in OS No 188 of 1990, on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Thirthahalli. After completion of evidence, when the suit was posted for arguments, petitioner herein filed IA-32 for re-opening the case and IA-33 for amendment to the plaint. Both the applications have been rejected by the trial court by a common order dated 22-10-2002. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed these petitions under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 115, substituted with effect from 1-7-2002 makes it clear that the High Court shall not, in exercise of power under Section 115, vary or reverse any order made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where such order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.

(3.) A learned Single Judge, before whom the cases were listed, has referred these petitions to a Division Bench on 17-1-2003 to consider the question whether the revision petitions are maintainable, having doubted the decision of another learned Single Judge in regard to the scope of Section 115 of CPC as amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999. Though the citation is not given, we are told that the reference was with reference to the decision rendered on 9-1-2003 in TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION vs NRI FILM PRODUCTION ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. , (2003 AIR-KAR, HCR 418 ). In the said decision, it was held that a narrow interpretation is not to be placed on the proviso to Section 115 (1); and where any specific case of injustice or extreme prejudice is brought to the notice of the High Court, it is bound to step in to render justice. In other words, the learned Single Judge was of the view that even if the order under revision would not have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. If it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, the power under Section 115 CPC can still be exercised in cases where injustice or extreme prejudice (irreparable loss) is made out.