K ANJAMMA Vs. CHANCHAL DANAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come up before me because an objection was raised by the office regarding the maintainability of the C.R.P. filed by the petitioners on the ground that there is no specific order in O.S. No. 6 of 1991 (corresponding to O.S. No. 553/89) on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ranga reddy District. When no specific order is passed by the lower court, the C.R.P., is not maintainable. The learned counsel represented the matter with the following endorsement: "Our contention in the lower court is that the suit itself is not maintainable and the Addl. District Judge, ignoring the contents as once the suit is decreed in terms of compromise, admitted the suit. Against which this C.R.P. is filed and the same is maintainable as no other remedy is left." When the matter came up before my learned brother Justice Motilal B. Naik on 8-2-1993, he directed that it may be posted before the regular court hearing C.R.Ps. Accordingly the matter has come up before me.

(2.) Prior to the matter coming before me, the matter appears to have been posted before my learned brother Justice N. D. Patnaik on 12-2-1993 and he directed that the matter may be posted before another learned Judge.

(3.) Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the power under S. 115, C.P.C. can be exercised suo motu and it is not necessary that there should be an order, before the power of the High Court can be invoked. He also contends that the popular notion that only an order or a decision can be agitated under S. 115, C.P.C., is not correct and it is always open to the party to bring to the notice of the Court the irregularity or impropriety in the jurisdiction and hence the C.R.P. is maintainable. He places strong reliance on certain observations reported in S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497.