PHOOL WATI Vs. GUR SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON account of the difference of opinion between G. C. Mathur and H. N. Seth, JJ., the papers were laid before the Chief Justice for referring the matter either to a third Judge or to a Bench of three Judges. As there existed no conflict in the decisions of the Court it was not considered necessary to refer the matter to a Full Bench. It has been heard by me and after I have given my opinion, the revision shall go back to the Bench for expression of final opinion on the question of law involved.

(2.) THE present revision arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Meerut in a revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The question for consideration is whether the present revision is maintainable. In many other revisions the order passed by the District Judge in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction had been challenged. The Division Bench decided to express an opinion on the maintainability of the revisions and to leave the question of admission of the revisions to a single Judge. G. C. Mathur, J. is of opinion that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by S. 2 of the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973, no revision lies against orders passed by the subordinate Courts in appeals or revisions. H. N. Seth, J. is of the contrary view provided that in deciding the appeal or revision the appellate or the revisional Court has committed an error of jurisdiction of the nature mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) thereof.

(3.) WHY the amendments were made would appear from paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons which run as follows :-