NAGAWWA Vs. MALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant-petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 5-4-2003 passed on I. A. No. 18 in O. S. No. 94 of 1997. The defendant-petitioner had disputed the signature of her husband on the Will and as such she had moved IA. No. 18 under Order 26, Rule 10-A of the civil Procedure Code seeking to appoint a Handwriting expert to give opinion about the signature of her husband. The Trial Court rejected the same.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge while considering the revision petition found that the decision of this Court in Smt. Meenakshamma v Mu-nivenkatappa and the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v Mis. Swaraj Developers and Others, had expressed different views, and therefore, referred the matter to a division Bench on the question of maintainability of the revision petition against the interlocutory orders and as to whether, in view of the amendment of Section 115 of the CPC, deleting clause (b) of the proviso and inserting new proviso to the effect that a revision lies only if the order if so varied or reversed would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding, revision lies against an order which would not finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings. The reference is placed before us as per the order dated 13-2-2004.

(3.) IN view of the recent amendment of Section 115 of the CPC, by amendment Act, 1999 which came into force from 1-7-2002, the revisional powers of this Court are curtailed and can be exercised only if the order passed on interlocutory applications would result in final disposal of the suit itself and not otherwise. Interlocutory orders, which do not finally decide the suit, or other proceedings cannot be the subject-matter of revision under Section 115 of the CPC. The Apex Court has considered this issue in its decision in Shiv Shakti's case, supra. The scope of the amendment of Section 115 of the CPC was considered by the Apex court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v Ram Chander Rai and Others, wherein their Lordships observed that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless the requirement of the proviso is satisfied.