ANILKUMAR KOMALCHND Vs. KASHINATH BALKRISHNA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this revision came up for hearing, Shri Chandmal Mehta,. learned counsel for the non-applicants raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the revision is not competent in view of the fact that the order, which is sought to be revised, is appealable.

(2.) ARGUMENTS were heard on the aforesaid preliminary question. Shri mehta placing reliance on sub-section (2) of section 115 as amended by the civil Procedure Code Amendment (Act No. 104 of 1976) Act, 1976, contended that in view of the fact that appeal against the impugned order lay to the court of District Judge, the revision is barred. Shri N. R. Nevaskar, learned counsel for the revision-applicant, submitted that the revision is competent in view of the ratio in Smt. Vidya Vati v. Devi Das (AIR 1977 S C 397), inasmuch as no appeal lies against the impugned order to this Court and that also in view of the provisions of section 80 (2), Civil Procedure Code as inserted by the Amendment act No. 104 of 1976.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection deserves to be upheld.