MOKKAPATI HARIHARA PRASAD Vs. NELAKUDITI NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is the appellant in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1444 of 1992, which has been dismissed by a separate order pronounced just now. The facts which led to the filing of Civil Revision petition are the same as stated in the C.M.A. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition against I.A. No. 1455 of 1992 granting permission to the respondents to file the suit. under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE petitioner without moving the Court below for revocation of the lower and inviting decision from the Court rushed to this Court and filed the Civil Revision Petition against I.A. No. 1455 of 1992 granting permission to the respondents to file suit under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code. The ex parte order in I.A. No. 1455 of 1992 cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as "case decided" within the Explanation to Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code as introduced by the amendment Act of 1976 and Civil Revision Petition is, thus, not maintainable. However, as it has been admitted and has been argued at length by both the learned Counsel, we are not dismissing it in limine.

(3.) THE first contention is that the granting of leave under 92 of Civil Procedure Code without notice to the respondents is illegal. The Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed this in view of the decision in R.M. Narayana Chettiar v. : AIR1991SC221 .