NARAYAN DASH Vs. GOURANGA CHARAN DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question of maintainability of the Civil Revision Petitions in view of amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code) by Act 46 of 1999 has arrested the further consideration of the CRPs on merit. Therefore, that common question of law is considered in each of the aforesaid CRPs with respect to the following type of cases involved in each of the CRPs. This common judgment shall abide the result on the question of maintainability of all the aforesaid CRPs. CRP No. 163 of 2002 Respondent No.6 in Title Appeal No.16 of 1996 of the Court of Addl.District Judge, Bargarh has challenged to the order passed on 2.7.2002 by the said Court in allowing the prayer for amendment of the appeal memo to insert some names and to correct the cause title. CRP No. 6 of 2003 Petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code for adding him as a party to Title Suit No. 33/10/169 of 1998/91/1985 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nimpara. On 29.10.2002 learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) passed the impugned order rejecting the application. CRP No.10 of 2003 The plaintiff/appellant in Title Appeal No.43 of 1997 of the Court of ad hoc Addl.District Judge (FTC), Dhenkanal filed an application for amendment of the plaint. On 7.11.2002 that Court considered and rejected the application. CRP No.29 of 2003 An application was filed by the plaintiff to call for certain documents in Title Suit No.247 of 2000 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar. On 6.1.2003 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) heard and rejected that application. CRP No. 30 of 2003 An application was filed by the plaintiffs to call for certain documents in Title Suit No.262 of 2000 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar. On 6.1.2003 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) heard and rejected that application. CRP No.70 of 2003 Plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No.51 of 1993 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh was rejected by that Court as per the impugned order passed on 25.1.2003. CRP No. 127 of 2003 Application for amendment filed by Defendant No.1 in Title Suit No. 128 of 1998 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur was heard and rejected by that Court as per the impugned order passed on 4.2.2003. CRP No. 154 of 2003 There are two plaintiffs in the suit. Plaintiffs filed an application purported to be under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code with the prayer to call for certain documents in Title Suit No.37 of 1998 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhanjanagar as per the impugned order passed on 24.3.2003 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) rejected that application. Thus, plaintiff No.1 has filed this CRP challenging to that order. CRP No.178 of 2003 In TMS No. 409 of 1992 of the Court of 1st Addl.Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cuttack an application was filed by the plaintiff to recall P.W.7 for his further evidence. On 19.2.2003 learned 1st Addl.Civil Judge (Sr. Division) rejected that application. That order is impugned in this CRP. CRP No. 183 of 2003 Petitioners application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code in Title Suit No.133 of 1999, presently pending in the Court of Ad hoc Addl.District Judge (FTC), Dhenkanal, was heard and rejected by that Court as per the impugned order passed on 26.3.2003. CRP No. 188 of 2003 Defendant No.2 in Title Suit No.25 of 1988 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Banki filed an application for amendment of the written statement. As per the impugned order passed on 29.3.2003 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) rejected that application. CRP No.236 of 2003 Petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Proceeding No.311 of 2003 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Bhubaneswar. In that suit he filed Interim Application No.273 of 2003 for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. In that Interim Application petitioner prayed for ad interim orders of temporary injunction. On 9.5.2003 that was rejected and the case was posted to 25.6.2003 for filing of the objection. Petitioner challenges that order in this CRP.

(2.) THE nature of the impugned orders involved in each of the aforesaid CRPs prima facie appear to this Court to be order of interlocutory in nature against which the High Court should not invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code because of the embargo put by the law in the proviso to Sub -Section (1) of Section 115. Therefore, petitioners were heard on the question of maintainability of the Civil Revisions. Interpretation of the scope and applicability of Section 115 to such type of case is to be considered systematically and consistently and therefore this common judgment is delivered on that common question of law involved in each of the Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) IN a note of submission made in C.R.P. No. 187 of 2003 some decisions have been cited by the petitioner to state that the category of order impugned in that revision comes within the meaning of a 'case decided. There can be hardly any dispute in that respect. But a revision is not entertainable only on satisfaction of that requirement of law.