LUCKNOW DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION Vs. B C JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff who feels aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2005 passed by the trial court whereby the trial court refused to grant ex parte temporary injunction without hearing the other side. It therefore, issued notices to the defendants and directed the file to be put up for disposal of the application No. 6C on 4.10.2005, approached this Court. The provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as has been amended in the State of U.P. by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003 is reproduced below: 115. Revision.-The High Court, in case arising out of original suits or other proceedings (of the value exceeding one lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees as the High Court may from time to time fix, by notification published in the Official Gazette including such suits or other proceedings instituted before the date of commencement of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, or as the case may be, the date of commencement of such notification), and the district court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or district court, as the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears:

(2.) A perusal of the provisions of Section 115 clearly demonstrates that the right to invoke jurisdiction under Section 115 will arise only in a case which has been decided in an original suits or other proceedings by the subordinate court.

(3.) Here admittedly the suit has not been decided finally. It is only temporary injunction application on which notices have been issued. The order clearly demonstrates that this application has not been finally decided therefore, In my opinion, the order under challenge is not covered by the phrase "case decided'.