PUVVADA SRINIVAS Vs. P CH SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , the learned Counsel representing the petitioners and Sri M.Balaji, the learned Counsel representing the respondents. The Civil Revision Petition is filed as against an order made in I.A.(G.R) No.3642/2003 in O.S.No.283/91 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 16-4-2003.

(2.) The Revision Petitioners herein filed I.A.(GR) No.3642/2003 in O.S.No.283/91 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "Code" in short to expunge the remarks and the evidence recorded on 28-6-2002 in the evidence of DW-1 in O.S.No.283/91 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram by the order dated 16-4-2003 had rejected the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the Revision petitioners. The remarks recorded by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram as against the petitioners and their Advocate in relation to the non-production of the order of stay may amount to a stigma and in view of the same, the petitioners moved the application aforesaid which was rejected.A preliminary objection was raised relating to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code. Sri Balaji, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had placed strong reliance on SHIV SHAKTI COOP.HOUSING SOCIETY, NAGPUR Vs. M/s. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS AND TOHERS 1 and had contended that the conflict of opinion expressed by different High Courts relating to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition as against an order of this nature had been settled by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision and hence on this short ground, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

(3.) Sri C.Upendra, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners had submitted that the remarks made are adverse remarks and in view of the seriousness involved in the matter and also in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the decision referred (1) supra at paragraphs 35 and 36, the petitioners may be permitted either to convert this Civil Revision Petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or at least be given liberty to move appropriate proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard both the counsel.