G D SHARMA Vs. PRAVEEN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 15.7.2000 passed in Misc. Appeal by the tower appellate court. The stamp reporter has reported that court fee paid in the revision is Rs. 100. He has mentioned in his report that the revision is not maintainable in view of Full Bench decision in AIR 1979 All 218.

(2.) Prima facie, the report appears to be correct. But the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri J. J. Munir has challenged the report and has relied on four single Judge decisions of this Court and has urged that the revision is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel urged that he did not file the revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, the Full Bench decision referred in the report was not attracted.

(3.) A Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal, AIR 1979 All (FB) 218, after considering the State amendment has held that a decision in appeal or revision by the civil court arising out of suits or other proceedings is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115. C.P.C. In another Full Bench decision of this Court in Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur Ghaziabad and others, AIR 1991 All (FB) 114, it has been held that a writ under Article 226 against such order is not maintainable and no mandamus can be issued to a private individual. Both these Full Bench decisions were examined by the learned single Judge in Matthan Singh v. IInd Additional District Judge, Meerut, 1996 (11 ARC 117, and it was held that an order passed in appeal or revision could neither be challenged by way of appeal or revision nor writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution be invoked. He, however, held that in absence of any verdict that a non-revlsable order could not be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution converted the revision In a petition under Article 227 and decided it accordingly. In Ram Pher Yadav v. Union Bank of India and others. 1999 (2) ACJ 1561, the learned Judge entertained a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed in appeal arising out of a suit but while dismissing it on merits, observed that, "the Court exercises revisional Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution on the same grounds on which such jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C." Similar observations were made by him In M/s. Om Rice Mill Jaspur and others v. Banaras State Bank Ltd. Kashipur and another, 2000 (1) ACJ 263. In Smt. Brijendra Kaur and others v. Ram Agarwal and others. 2000 (1) ACJ 535, the learned Judge converted the revision filed under Section 115, C.P.C. under Article 227 and decided it as revision. But neither decision contains any reason in support of treating a revision filed under Section 115, C.P.C. as a revision or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.