MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AMBAJOGAI Vs. KAIMKHAN SARDARKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER the Parliament introduced extensive amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the Amendment act No. 46 of 1999, which came into force with effect from 1/7/2002, a common question of law emerged frequently in regard to interpretation of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the question that falls for consideration is thus: whether Revision Petitions directed against interlocutory orders are maintainable after the amendment and as to whether all pending revisions as on 1/7/2002 are to be decided at the touchstone of amended section 115 of the C. P. C.

(2.) AS the said question emerged repeatedly in various matters, I had directed the Registry to identify cases, wherein identical issues are involved and pursuant to the said direction, the office has placed on Board aforesaid matters, wherein a common question of maintainability of the revision Petitions arises for adjudication. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the Revision Petitioners, so also, the learned Advocates representing the respondents. The petitions are taken in two groups. Group A denote petitions which are admitted and pending final hearing and Group B denote cases which are at admission stage. All the petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

(3.) IN this judgment, the orders passed by the trial Court under Order vi Rule 17 of the C. P. C. , either granting the amendment to the plaint or written statement or refusing to grant prayer for amendment of the plaint or written statement, are impugned. The said orders are not final orders for the obvious reason that the same do not terminate the lis between the parties completely. To put it in other words, the impugned orders are not capable of complete decision of a suit or proceedings. Before I proceed to deal with the question, I choose to reproduce the amended Section 115 of the C. P. C. which reads thus :