NAIM UDDIN ALIAS NAIM AHMAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, Etah in Misc. Case No. 198 of 2004 whereby the District Judge, has refused to entertain the revision under Section 115, C.P.C. against an order passed by Munsif under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act). Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Anwar Ali v. Additional District Judge, Moradabad and Ors., 2002 (5) AWC 4094 : 2003 (38) ACJ 105, wherein learned single Judge of this Court has held that no revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies against an order passed under Section 30 of the Act.

(2.) In this view of the matter, since no revision lies as held by this Court in the decision of Anwar Ali, 2002 (5) AWC 4094 : 2003 (38) ACJ 105 (supra), this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon another decision of this Court in St. Jones School v. Special Judge, E.C. Act and Anr., 1998 (3) AWC 1995 (LB) : 1999 (1) ARC 588, wherein learned single Judge relying upon earlier judgments of this Court has held that a revision will lie. Since the judgment of Anwar Ali, 2002 (5) AWC 4094 : 2003 (38) ACJ 105 (supra) is later judgment, therefore, according to the principle of precedent, later judgment will prevail if the same is passed by jurisdiction of Coordinate Bench.

(3.) In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order passed by the District Judge. Apart from learned counsel for the petitioner could not point any provision of the Act under which revision lies against the order passed under Section 30 of the Act. The Munsif does not exercise the power of civil court under the provisions of either C.P.C., or Bengal, Assam, Agra Civil Court Act.