SABITRI DAS Vs. GANGADHAR NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above noted Civil Revisions argument was heard separately on different dates but in all such cases the common question of law involved is relating to their maintainability in view of Amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') by Act 46 of 1999 which came into force with effect from July 1st 2002. Thus, this common judgment shall abide the result on the question of maintainability of each of such Civil Revisions.

(2.) C . R. No. 370 of 2000: Defendant No. 5 of O.S. No. 141 of 1983 of the Court of Munsif (Civil Judge, Junior Division), Balasore filed Misc. Case No. 350 of 1990 under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC to set aside the decree which was passed ex parte against her. That Misc. case was dismissed on merit on 22.8.1992. She preferred Misc. Case Appeal No. 39 of 1992. Learned District Judge, Balasore, as per the impugned judgment passed on 20.7.2000 dismissed that appeal. As against that order, the said defendant No. 5 has filed the present Civil Revision and the plaintiffs of the suit are the opposite parties 1 and 2. Defendant in Title Suit No. 25 of 1997 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur has filed the present civil revision as against order of interim maintenance granted by the said Court in M.J.C. No. 147 of 2000 which was filed under Section 151 of the Code inasmuch as the aforesaid title suit has been filed by the plaintiffs opposite party claiming for maintenance under The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as the wife and daughters of the petitioner. Learned Civil Judge has granted interim monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000/ to the wife and @ Rs. 500/ to each of the two daughters. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 881 of 2001 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar and the opposite party members are the defendants. Petitioners filed Misc. Case No. 776 of 2001 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC seeking the relief of interim injunction against the defendants. Learned Civil Judge on 17.10.2001 directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the path way measuring an area of AO. 008 decimals at southern side in suit Plot No. 4058. Defendants challenged to that order in the appellate Court. Learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Bhubaneswar on 15.3.2002 delivered the judgment by allowing the appeal. That Court vacated the order of status quo. That order is under challenge in the present civil revision. Petitioners filed M.J.C. No. 12 of 2000 under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karanjia with the prayer to set aside the decree passed ex parte against them in Title Suit No. 7 of 1997. On 20.4.2001, learned Civil Judge dismissed that Misc. case on contest. Petitioners challenged that order in an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, CPC. Learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada, disposed of that Misc. Appeal No. 10/17 of 2002 2001, as per the impugned judgment delivered on 18.1.2003. The appellate Court also concurred with the finding and result recorded by learned Civil Judge and accordingly dismissed the appeal on merit. That judgment is under challenge in this Civil Revision. Some of the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 76 of 1994 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul have filed this revision challenging to the order No. 317 dated 27.2.2003 passed by that Court in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint.

(3.) IN the reported decisions noted in the preceding paragraphs (paragraph 3) relating to the type of cases covered, by the present batch of Civil Revisions, it has been consistently held that such Civil Revisions are not maintainable after amendment of Section 115 of the Code by Act 46 of 1999. In paragraph 7 in the case of Sitaram (supra) this Court has settled that: