GAYAPRASAD Vs. DEEPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to this Bench for decision:

(2.) IT is in the following manner that the above question has been referred.

(3.) IT is a trite law that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, whereas the revision is not a continuation of the suit. It would also be significant to note here that the supreme Court has while dealing with Abhyankar's case (supra) has approved a Full bench decision of the Madras High Court in P. P. P. Chidambaranadar v. C. P. A Rama nadar (AIR 1937 Mad. 385), wherein, while deciding the question about the applicability of Article 182 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, whether the word 'appeal' was used in a restrictive sense so as to exclude revision petitions and the expression 'appellate Court' was to be confined to a Court exercising appellate, as opposed to, revisional powers, the Full Bench expressed the view that Article 182 (2) applied to civil revisions as well and not only to appeals in the narrow sense of that term as used in the civil Procedure Code. This goes to show that for the purpose of the Civil Procedure code - with which we are concerned in the present case - appeal and revision are two different expressions and appeal does not include revision.