BEHARI LAL ETC. Vs. SHMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that these revision petitions have not been properly filed, inasmuch as the Petitioners have not put in the certified copies of the orders of the trial Court. Reference in this connection is made to Rule 7 in Chapter I -A of Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court, Volume V. The said rule says - -

(2.) A perusal of this rule would show that it is necessary that the Petitioner should file a copy of the order of the trial Court as well. It is true that the Petitioners, along with the revision petitions, had filed an application under Order 41, Rule 1 read with Sections 141/151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for dispensing with the production of the copy of the judgment of the trial Court and the reason given therein was that the facts were clear from the copy of the judgment of the lower appellate Court and therefore, it was a fit case in which a copy of the judgment of the trial Court could be dispensed with. Learned Counsel fox the Petitioners has not brought to my notice any provision of law, under which such v an application can be made in the case of revision petition. Order 41, Rule 1, applies to appeals from original decrees and by virtue of Order 42, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, rules of Order 41 would apply, so far as may be, to appeals from appellate decrees. Under Order 41, Rule 1, the appellate Court has been given the power to dispense with the production of a copy of the judgment on which, the decree appealed from is founded, but the learned Counsel was unable to show that in revision petitions also, this Court can dispense with the certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court. That being so, it has to be held that these revision petitions have not been properly filed in this Court.