RADHEY SHYAM Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. R. N. Yadav for petitioners and Sri Manish Nigam for caveator-respondent No. 3.

(2.) Petitioners have challenged an order dated 16.11.2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Court No. 18), Allahabad, by which he has dismissed Civil Revision No. 249 of 2002, Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Kalloo. The revision was filed against an order rejecting the application 35-ga for recalling the order by which the trial court had accepted the Commissioner's report. It has been dismissed on the ground that after the repeal of U. P. Amendment Act No. 31 of 1978 and Act No. 17 of 1991 to Section 115 of C.P.C. 1908 by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1999, the revision is not maintainable.

(3.) Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 9.10.2002 in Transfer Application No. 36 of 2002, Lallan v. Special Judge, Jaunpur and Ors., by which it has been held that revisions under Section 115, C.P.C., which were instituted before the District Judges prior to 1.7.2002 can be heard and disposed of by the District Judges, and that the jurisdiction to decide these revisions has not been taken away. This Court relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Smt. Shardamma, JT 1996 (4) SC 90, in which it was held that if the amendments are made changing the forum regarding appeal or revision, duly instituted pending cases shall be decided by the forum in which they were instituted unless an intention to the contrary is clearly shown. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Amrit Lal and Company, 2001 (8) SCC 397 and Central Bank of India v. VIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. 1997 (2) AWC 711 : 1997 (1) ARC 312, the same view was taken that duly instituted matters shall be decided by the same Court, notwithstanding the change in the forum.