A GOVERDHAN REDDY Vs. RAVI MRDICAL DISTRIBUTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P., which is at the stage of SR, is sought to be filed by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 15-03-2005 passed by the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court Hyderabad, allowing the application, in I.A. No. 191 of 2004 in O.S.No. 639 of 2002, filed by the respondent-plaintiff underOrderXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) As by reason of the order passed in the I.A., the Court below allowed the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit and passed a decree, upon contest by the defendant by way of filing written statement, the Registry took an objection that the C.R.P. under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') is not maintainable, for an appeal remedy is provided against the said order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the decree passed in the I.A., amounted to deciding the very suit itself, revision under Section 115 of the Code, is maintainable, and more so when no appeal lies under Section 96(3) of the Code, and in support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon. Placing reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Ankit Udyog and others v. Laxman Prasad, he submitted that no appeal lies against a consent decree. He submitted that the petitioner had denied the liability in the written statement and the application filed by the respondent for attachment before judgment was also dismissed. There being no admission made by the petitioner by way of pleading in the written statement, the Court below committed an error in passing the decree in I.A., resulting in deciding the suit, and in respect of such a decree, a revision is maintainable, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in D.Ram Mohan Rao v. M/s. Sridevi Hotels Pvt. Ltd..