KRIPASHANKAR MUDGAL Vs. LALIT MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant/petitioner has preferred the present revision application stating that it is against the findings given by the Court of ADJ, Sheopurkalan in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A/99.

(2.) SHRI Vijaywargiye, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition is not maintainable since the same is in fact against the decree and an appeal is provided for under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) SHRI Niwaskar, learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is not aggrieved by the judgment and decree, but is aggrieved merely by the findings contained in Paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment. He submitted that an appeal is not provided against merely a finding and therefore, the defendant/revisionist has rightly preferred the present civil revision. Learned Counsel for this purpose relied on the authorities reported as AIR 1974 SC 1126,1977 JLJ 245, (2002) 6 SCC 1 and (2003) 9 SCC 606.