SURESH V TALARAJA Vs. GOPAL PUNDALIK KOPARGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset Mr. W. K. Joshi, counsel for the petitioner prayed for conversion of this petition as CRP. Petitioner has filed a CRP which was withdrawn in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in M. M. Yaragatti v. Vasanth reported in (1987(2) Kar.L.J 9 : AIR 1987 Karnataka 186). The said decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in Shyamaraju v. U.V. Bhat (1987(2) Kar.L J. 308: AIR 1987 S.C. 2323); the Supreme Court further approved the earlier Full Bench decision in Krishnaji Venkatesh Shirodkar v. Gurupad Shivaram Kavlekar (ILR 1978(2) Karnataka 1985) ; the resultant position is that a revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against a revisional order of the District Judge under Sec. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. In this case, the order challenged is an order of allowing review petition by the District Judge

(2.) An order granting review application under Rule 4 of Order 47 would be appealable to the Court to which an appeal would lie from the decree in the suit as provided in Sec. 106 CPC The impugned order is not passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The order of District Judge under Sec. 50 of the Rent Control Act, is not appealable. It is a revisable order under Section 115 as held by Full Bench in Venkatesh Shirodkar's case referred to above. Therefore the impugned order is only revisable ; hence petitioner's request to convert this W.P. as CRP is allowed. Office is directed to register it as CRP and refund the excess court fee. The question that needs consideration is whether the District Judge, a revisional authority under Section 50 of the Rent Control Act, can review his order ?

(3.) There is no specific power of review under the Karnataka Rent Control Act; but in J. Nandanlal v. Narayanaswamy (AIR 1975 Karnataka 237) Mr. DMCJ (as he then was) has held th .t the High Court and District Judge under Section 50 of the Act being a "Court" have the power of review The learned Judge considered the power of review as a matter of "practice and procedure". The learned Judge while reviewing his own order, relied upon the observation of the Supreme Court in AIR 1953 S C 357, wherein the Court was considering the power of High Court to entertain a letters patent appeal in a case decided in appeal by the High Court, under the Trade Marks Act which did not provide for further appeal. Letters patent appeal, under Letters Patent Act, cannot be equated to a power of review and the sustenance drawn from that judgment is not apt to hold that District Judge can review his order. Further, the District Judge cannot be equated to High Court. High is a Court of plenary jurisdiction, which has always the jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. In Anantramasetty v. T. Mariappa (1966(1) Mys L.J. 649) Govinda Bhat, J : (as he then was) held thus :