THANKAMMA Vs. KRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has come up before us pursuant to an order of reference made by our learned brother Varghese kalliath, J. on the question whether the revision petition is maintainable in view of two decisions of the Supreme Court in Visheh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, air 1980 SC 892, and Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, 1987 (1) KLT 53.

(2.) WE should have thought that the question is not open in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Syamaraju Hegde v. Venkatesha Bhat,1987 (2) KLT 977 and M/s. Jetha Bai & Sons v. Sunderdas rathenai,1988 (1) KLT 386. In Aundal Ammal (supra), one of the reasons mentioned by the Supreme Court to hold, that the revision under S. 115 of the Code of civil Procedure would not lie against a revisional order under S. 20 of the kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) was, that "that would mean there would be a trial by four courts, that would be repugnant to the scheme manifest in the different sections of the act in question. Public policy or public interest demands curtailment of law's delay and justice demands finality with quick disposal of case". An additional reason to support the conclusion was that sub-section (5) of S. 18 of the Act clearly stipulates, that a decision of the appellate authority and subject to such decision an order of the rent control court "shall be final" and "shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law", except in the manner provided under S. 20. The court held, that in view of the finality and the specific bar enacted as above, the, High Court, under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may not revise a revisional order passed under S. 20 of the Act.

(3.) A similar question, whether a revision under S. 115 of the Code could be entertained against an order of the District Court under S. 16 of the Telegraph Act came up before this court on two subsequent occasions in neelandan v. K. S. E. Board, 1988 (2) KLT 656, and K. S. E. Board v. Thampi,1988 (2) KLT 941. In the former, this court found that the determination by the District Judge under sub-section (4) of the dispute as to the persons entitled to receive compensation for apportionment as between them, though final under sub-section (5), the proviso to the latter enables any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of the compensation paid by the telegraph authority from the person who has received the same. The learned judge held, that provision of an alternative remedy in the above proviso inhibits a revision under S. 115 of the Code against the order of the District Judge under sub-section (4) of S. 16 of the Telegraph Act. The correctness of these two decisions was the subject matter of consideration by a division Bench in K. S. E. Board v. Cheriyan Varghese, 1989 (1) KLT 451. In two separate but concurring judgments, the Division Bench overruled Neelandan (supra) and K. S. E. Board (supra) The reasoning adopted by the Division Bench was that but for the provisions in S. 16 (5), it would have been open to a person aggrieved by the judgment of the District Court under S. 16 (4) to file an appeal and a second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the finality provided by the above sub-section justified invocation of revisional powers under S. 115 of the Code.