K NARENDER Vs. K MALLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against an order dated 22-2-2005 made in I. A. No. 42 of 2005 in O. S. No. 59 of 2000 on the file of the learned I Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the petition filed under Section 114 (a) read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure for reviewing the Order dated 3-11-2004 was allowed and thereby ordered that Exs. A84 and A85 can be marked as secondary evidence and objection raised by defendants 2 and 3 is not sustainable.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 3 in the above I. A. are the petitioners in Civil revision Petition No. 1207 of 2005, while respondent No. 2 is the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 1441 of 2005. There is no necessity of going into all the details as of now.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 (petitioner in the above LA.) filed a counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable, in view of the fact that against the impugned order, appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (w) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is available. At that stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners sought permission of the Court to convert the civil revision petitions to that of appeals under Order XLIII rule 1 (w) of CPC. Whereas, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent strenuously contended that a revision filed under Article 227 of the constitution cannot be permitted to be converted to that of a regular appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (w) of CPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti prasad, and drawn attention to Paragraph-22, which reads as under :