SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 7th August, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, IInd Court, Muzaffarnagar in Civil Revision No. of 1999 has since been challenged, Before proceeding further. I have, however, observed that in many cases which is coming to this Court that the number of the Civil Revision is not being allotted though the matter is decided finally. It is unfortunate that the District Courts are running without appropriate administration. No matter can be decided without allotting a number. As soon an appeal or revision is presented, it has to be registered. It is not known how the District Judge's Court is being run. Why such numbers are not being allotted? it is also not known how the certified copies are being issued without the number of the case. The learned Registrar shall request the learned District Judges to explain the situation and the report that might be obtained from the learned District Judge shall be placed before this Court along with the records of this case on 5th October. 1999.

(2.) The said Civil Revision has been dismissed on the ground that the valuation of the subject-matter exceeds Rs. 1 Lakh and as such the revision is outside pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge in respect of the Civil Revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Dixit contends that by reason of the U. P. Amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure through U. P. Act No. 17 of 1991 which came Into force on 15th January, 1991. the pecuniary Jurisdiction of revisional power of the District Judge has been enhanced to Rs. 5 lakh. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar Srtvastava v. Anant Sahkari Anas Samiti Ltd., Allahabad and others. 1999 (1) AWC 636, wherein it was held that a revision arising out of a suit valued at Rs. 1,40,625 lies before the District Court in view of the amendment made in Section 115 through U. P. Act No. 17 of 1991. Relying on this decision, he contends that revision lies before the District Judge and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained. He then contends in a suit for injunction. plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX. Rules I and 2 whereupon notices were directed to be issued under Order XXXIX, Rule 3. While refusing to grant ad interim order against which the said revision was preferred. Mr. Dixit contends that there was no order of refusal to grant ad interim order. Since ihe concerned officer of the prescribed Court was not available on account of vacancy, the Officer incharge of the said Court only directed Issue of notices without adverting to the question of grant or refusal of ad interim order. Therefore. In such peculiar circumstances, it was not a refusal to grant ad interim order though prayer for ad interim order was made. On this ground according to him. the revision is maintainable.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Madhusudan Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner at length.