SHIVCHANDRA JHUNJHUNWALA CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. GOVINDPRASAD GANESHPRASAD DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petitions along with about three hundred other writ petitions are listed before this Court for admission wherein interlocutory orders passed by the Civil Courts during pendency of the suits are impugned. Majority of these writ petitions are filed after withdrawing civil revision applications, which were filed prior to amendment to section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein same orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions, were impugned and, therefore, before adjudicating the issue on merits, at the outset the Bar was called upon to address this Court on the legal issue as to the power under article 227 of the Constitution of India vested in the High Court, whether high Court can refuse to exercise the same, which otherwise would defeat the mandate of statutory provisions of law contained in section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which stands substantially amended with effect from 1-7-2002 and interference by this Court under section 115 of the Code is called for only if order is made by this Court in favour of the party applying for revision would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings.

(2.) THE issue was addressed by learned Counsel Shri Anjan De, Shri sunil Manohar, Shri Kaptan, Shri Sundaram, Mrs. Sirpurkar, Shri Khapre, shri Mehadia and Shri Vyawahare. The arguments and legal contentions advanced by the learned respective Counsel'and the judgments of the apex Court and High Court cited and relied upon by them are summarised as follows :.

(3.) THE learned Counsel contend that power under Article 227 of the constitution is a constitutional power vested in the High Court and amendment to section 115 neither curtails the said power nor the said power is affected in any way by such amendment. It is further contended that recommendations given by Law Commission of India for deletion of section 115 are relevant for this purpose and considered by this Court in the case of (Rajabhau s/o, Mahadeorao Rahate v. Dinkar s/o. Shantaram ingole) The relevant portion of para (19) of the said judgment is reproduced thus :