BRAHMA DEVIS Vs. VTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated April 29, 1999 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 85 of 1997 passed by the Additional District Judge. Vth Court, Etawah, affirming the order dated October 15, 1997, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Etawah in SCC Suit No. 4 of 1980 has since been challenged.

(2.) Mr. K. M. Misnra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by an order dated August 30, 1997, an application for substitution filed by Avinash Chandra Saxena in the place and stead of Prakash Chandra Saxena was dismissed. According to him, the order is revisable. But the opposite party had filed an application for review of the order dated August 30. 1997. The said review application was allowed by the learned trial court by the Impugned order dated October 15, 1997, since been affirmed on appeal by order dated April 29, 1999. According to him, the trial court could not have assumed Jurisdiction to review the said order after having rejected the application for substitution. Therefore, the said order is wholly without Jurisdiction. The appellate court had acted illegally and without material in the exercise of its Jurisdiction in affirming the said order on the face of the illegality inherent in it. According to him, since the order was revisable one, the review could not have been maintained on the said facts without disclosing any ground for review. He alternatively, contends that even if assuming but not admitting the review is maintainable still then, the orders suffer from Infirmity to the extent that no ground was ever made out. Therefore, the order should be set aside.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K. M. Mishra a,t length.