HARI SINGH Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application under paragraph 35 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948.

(2.) The applicant Hari Singh filed a suit in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rohru, District Mahasu, for Rs. 544. The suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge. On appeal by the Defendants, Jai Singh and Pratap Singh, the learned District Judge reduced the decretal amount to Rs. 234. Hari Singh applies now in revision.

(3.) The application purports to have been made under paragraph 35 of the Himachal Courts Order, but if regard is had to the grounds and the relief set out in the application, it will be found that the jurisdiction under sub -paragraph (b) thereof has been invoked. Clause (iii) of the proviso to sub -paragraph (b) provides that this Court shall not revise the decision of the Court below except in so far as such decision involves a question of law or custom in respect of which the application has been admitted. When we turn to the grounds taken in the application, it does not appear that there is any question of law or custom which requires further consideration. At the time of admitting the application, the Court did not specify the question of law or custom which it considered arose out of the judgment of the Court below and which called for further consideration, but the Court at the time of final hearing of the revision application is not precluded from examining the question whether there is a question of law or custom which requires further consideration. It is open to the Court in final hearing, even though a revision application has been admitted, to examine whether the revision application lies at all. The order admitting the revision application is an ex -park order, and all that can be said is that the Court at the time of admitting the revision application considered prima facie that a question of law or custom which deserved further consideration arose in the case. But that view is not final and it is open to the Respondent at the time of final hearing to show that no such question of law or custom is involved in the case.