GAJANAN Vs. MOHD JAMIL MOHD AMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters have been placed before this Court in view of the order passed by the Honourable Chief Justice in view of the reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the present petitions.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, while making a reference found that the learned single Judge of this Court (B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.) in the case of Dilip Bidesh & Ors. Vs. Shivgopal Madangopal Chaurasia & ors.; reported in 2005 (6) Bom C.R.207 had taken a view that the revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as the Code ) would not be tenable against the order of the District Judge passed under Sec. 27 of the Bombay Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Said Act ). Whereas, another Single Judge of this Court (A. S. Oka, J.) in the case of Dhuliabai Mana Praga and ors. Vs. Manikbai Vithalrao Bhusarath (Deceased) reported in 2009 (5) Mh. L. J. 524 has taken a view that the writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India would not be tenable since the revision under Sec. 115 of the Code is an alternate remedy available to a litigant. Noticing this conflict, the learned Single Judge has framed the following question for consideration by the Larger Bench.

(3.) Mr. Kavimandan holding for Mr. Khapre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions.