NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD., BY ITS CHIEF OF TECHNICAL SERVICES, HAVING OFFICE AT NEYVELI Vs. GOVINDARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation limited, by its Chief of Technical Services against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram directing the defendant to file the agreement No. 54 of 1966 -67 into Court and directing the arbitrator to decide the dispute. It is unnecessary to state the facts at any length. Suffice it to say that the petitioner submitted that the respondent did move for arbitration within 6 months as provided for in the agreement. The respondent relied on the provision of S. 37(4) of the Arbitration Act stating if the Court is of opinion that in the circumstances of the case undue hardship would otherwise be caused and notwithstanding that the time so fixed had expired, the court may extend the time for such period as it thinks proper. On a consideration of the entire facts, the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that this is a fit case in which time should be extended under S. 37(4) of the Arbitration Act and directed the filing of the arbitration agreement. S. 39(i) (iv) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decree of the Court passing the order directing the filing of arbitration agreement. Under S. 30(i) an appeal is provided for to the District Court, South Arcot District. This appeal was not filed before the District Court, but a revision was straightaway filed under S. 115 C.P.C., by the petitioner to this Court.

(2.) A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that when an appeal is provided for, a revision petition should not be entertained. It is unnecessary to go into the question whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a revision when an appeal is provided for against the order of the lower court. It may be mentioned that Mr. S. Gopalarathnam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prohibition of filing a revision under S. 115 C.P.C. is confined only to cases where no appeal lies to the High Court against the order of the lower court, and not in cases where an appeal lies to a court lower to that of the High Court, namely, the District Court. In support of his contention he relied on a decision in Jaganatha Prasad Gupta v/s. Ramanatha Konar, 1966 I M.L.J. 451;, 79 L.W. 29 where a question arose whether there is a prohibition against the High Court entertaining a revision petition or not in practice, the High Court seldom entertains a revision petition against an order against which an appeal is provided for why the to the High Court or to any other Court. Otherwise the High Court will be burdened with heavy work without any jurisdiction. Following the practice therefore, 1 decline to entertain this revision petition. This revision petition is dismissed with Costs.