K G BELLIAPPA Vs. F C KUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The broad questions that arise in these interlocutory matters are referred to the Division Bench under Section 9(vi) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 under the following circumstances: A Full Bench of this Court opined on 10-4-1987 in MM. Yaragatti v Savanth (ILR 1987 Kar. 1286), that no Revision Petition is maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order made by the District Court under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, which itself is a revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, a large number of pending Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed. In most of such cases, the erstwhile revision Petitioners filed Writ Petitions challenging the respective orders of District Courts. In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court overruled the view of this Court, in Shyamaraju Hegde v Venkatesh Bhat (ILR 1987 Kar. 3244) and held that, revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC was available against an order of the District Court made in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The decision of the Supreme Court is dated 25-9-1987. Consequent on the decision of the Supreme Court, several pending Writ Petitions (which were filed either by the erstwhile Revision Petitioners or by fresh petitioners against the subsequent orders of District Courts) were sought to be converted as Civil Revision Petitions. In a few cases those petitioners also filed applications for the revival of the old Civil Revision Petitions, since remedy under Section 115 CPC is now available. In other cases, where, the erstwhile Revision Petitioners did not file any writ petition, there also applications were filed to revive the old Civil Revision Petitions; in some of such cases, we are told that, orders of District Courts were even executed and the applications to revive the Civil Revision Petitions will lead to restitution proceedings. The situation is summarised by the learned single Judge thus:

(2.) The points canvassed before the learned single Judge were:

(3.) These points were again canvassed before us by M/s. H.B. Datar and K.R.D. Karanath. Mr. S.G. Bhat, learned counsel contended that, whether the parties seek the revival of the old Civil Revision Petitions or not, this Court should suo motu recall the dismissal orders to meet the ends of justice.