SUNITI KR PRATIHAR Vs. SARBANI SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a respondent in a proceedings under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and is directed against an order passed by Sri S. Raha, Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act) cum Additional District Judge, Midnapore reversing the order passed by Sri A. Chakraborty, Munsif, Midnapore.

(2.) Smt. Sarbani Sen, who is the respondent before this court, made a prayer for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act coupled with a prayer under section 5 of the Limitation Act for pre-emption of the disputed plot. The learned Munsif upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and the evidence disallowed the prayer for pre-emption on merits and also on the ground that it is barred by limitation. On being aggrieved by such order, the said petitioner Smt. S. Sen approached the learned District Judge, Midnapore with a prayer made under section 115(A) of the Code of Civil procedure for relief. It is subsequently heard by Additional District Judge cum Judge, Special Court, who condoned the delay and directed the learned Munsif to decide the petition under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act afresh and on merits. On being aggrieved by that order, the instant revisional application has been preferred by this court by Suniti Kr. Pratihar, who happens to be the respondent in the proceedings under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

(3.) Mr. Pijush Kanti Dutta, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party (that is the original petitioner) has contended that with the introduction of section 115(A) in the Code of Civil Procedure, this court sitting in revision cannot quash the order of the lower court. The provision containing in section 115(A) was introduction by local amendment and the power of revision was conferred on the District Courts to entertain revisional application which so long was being exercised by the High Court alone. Thus, by the introduction of section 115(A), co-ordinate jurisdiction has been created by the State amendment clothing the district courts to exercise the identical power in revision which can be exercised by the High Court within the meaning of section 115. It is not disputed that in the instant case, the present respondent preferred a revision before the District Judge, Midnapore where the District Court passed an order and so according to Mr. Dutta after such order was passed this court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of such contention, Sri Dutta has referred to the decision of this court reported in AIR 1990 Cal page 262, but in that case it was held that a party seeking relief under the revisional jurisdiction of the District Court or the High Court cannot again prefer revision in either of the two courts. But, in section 115 sub section 4 emphasis has been given upon the words 'same party'. Here the parties are different in as much as the present petitioner was the opposite party-respondent before the District Court. Had it been a case that 'same party' has approached this court in revision, the position would have been different and provision of section 115 will operate as a bar.