SURTYOMAL Vs. CHANDABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made by the learned single Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice S. K. Pandey on the question whether revision under Section 23-E of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "The Act") lies against an interlocutory order passed in a proceeding under Section 23-A of the Act as the High Court exercises the same power and follow the same procedure as prescribed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, in view of the amendment made in Section 115 of CPC by Amendment Act of 1999 by which a proviso has been inserted in Section 115, CPC that High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse an order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or proceeding or except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.

(2.) It was submitted before the Single Bench that revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable under Section 23-E considering that the question of law of immense importance has arisen, which may involve reconsideration of the decision in Smt. Tara Bai v. Second ADJ, Gwalior, AIR 1990 MP 167, hence the case has been referred.

(3.) It was submitted by Shri Alok Aradhe, appearing on behalf of petitioner that the provision which has been incorporated in Section 23-E of the Act is an independent provision and any amendment made in Section 115, CPC, is not going to affect the provision engrafted under Section 23-E by the Legislature. His submission is when any provision has been engrafted by reference, its repeal or amendment does not affect as the provision has to be treated independent one. He has further submitted that there is distinction between jurisdiction, power and procedure. The jurisdiction conferred under Section 23-E, is independent whereas the jurisdiction conferred under Section 115, CPC has been curtailed. Thus revision lies against interlocutory order, which decides the rights of the parties, which is distinguishable from purely interim order. He has also submitted that power under Section 23-E is wider than the power conferred under Section 115 of CPC. Until and unless amendment is made in Section 23-E of the Act, the jurisdiction cannot be curtailed to entertain and hear the revision under Section 23-E of the Act.