GAJJELLI NARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the Judgment and decree dt. 2-4-1997 passed by the District Munsif, Tiruvuru, Krishna District in O.S.No.112 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the Court below rejected the plaint holding that the same is not maintainable. The said order must be held to be passed under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.'). An appeal thus would be maintainable thereagainst in terms of Section 96(1) of C.P.C., which reads thus:

(2.) In terms of Section 115 of C.P.C., as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, an embargo has been placed upon the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction thereunder, if an appeal is maintainable against the decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Allahabad Court in Amba Shankar v. M.T. Seoti. The Madras High Court in Muriyandi v. Rajangam Iyer, however, has taken a contrary view. Before amendment of the provisions contained under Section 115 of C.P.C. by reason of Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 different views have been taken by different High Courts as regards the maintainability of a revision petition in respect of an order whereagainst an appeal is maintainable. The Parliament has amended Section 115 of C.P.C. only with a view to resolve such conflict. Section 115(1) C.P.C reads thus:

(3.) A bare perusal of the said provision clearly in no uncertain terms lays down that the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction by calling for the records of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such Court whereagainst no appeal lies. Thus, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that as an appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting the plaint in terms of Section 2(2) of the C.P.C., this revision petition is not maintainable. The petitioner, therefore, may prefer an appeal before the appropriate Court.