SRIPAT RAO Vs. AHMED ABDUL KHALIQ SIDDIQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for determination in this case is: "Whether the High Court has power to review an order passed in exercise of revisional powers conferred upon it under section 12 of the Hyderabad Small Causes Courts Act (Act No.VI of 1330 Fasli) referred to hereinafter merely as "the Act"? Facts; The respondents filed a Small Cause Suit No. 347/73 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad seeking the recovery of a sum of Rs. 765/ being the arrears of rent due by the petitioner to him, That suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 765/- with costs and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by that decision the petitioner filed before this court Civil Revision Petition No. 591/75 under Section 12 of the Act. This Court dismissed that Civil Revision petition on 23rd December, 1977. Thereafter Civil Misc. Petition No. 2306/78 was filed by the petitioner under section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requesting this court to review the Judgment and decree dated 23rd of December, 1977 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the fact of the record in as much as the privity of contract of tenancy was not proved before the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and that this court did not advent to the finding called for by this court and received from the trial court dated 10th July, 1976 wherein the trial court found that there was no privity of contract between the parties which negatives the allegation of attornment.

(2.) Sri Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri. learned counsel appearing for the respondent took a preliminary objection as regards the very maintainability of the review petition stating inter alia that there is no provision in the Act providing for review of a decision rendered by this court under section 12 of the Act and as such this petition is liable to be dismissed at the very outset.

(3.) As against that, Sri Mohammed Azizullah Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Act provides both expressly as well as by necessary implication for the review of a decision rendered by this court under section 12 of the Act. Even otherwise, this court can exercise the powers of review under section 134 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in any event as per section 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the power of review conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is available to this court exercising jurisdiction under section 12 of the Act.