OM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil revision against the order of Additional District Judge under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code directing the revisionist to implead opposite parties nos. 3 to 6 as parties to a suit filed by the revisionist.

(2.) THE facts are that the revisionist filed a suit against State Transport Authority praying that they be restrained from issuing temporary permit and secured a temporary injunction. THE opposite parties nos. 3 to 6 who had temporary permit for a certain periods and expected to get it renewed applied for being made party. THE learned Additional District Judge directed them to be made parties by the impugned order against which the present revision has been filed.

(3.) IN the case of Mancik Chandra Nandy v Debdas Nandy, (1986) 1 SCC 512 Supreme Court pointed out that under section 115 Civil Procedure Code revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised by the High Court in a case in which no appeal lies to it from the decision of a Subordinate Court if it appears to it that the Subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is thus confined to question of jurisdiction.