HARI DASS Vs. BUDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by a plaintiff arises out of an interlocutory order passed in a suit for the recovery of Rs. 492/-, representing the price of eight trees, alleged to have been sold by the defendants. Proviso (ii) to para. 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, expressly debars a revision application in such a suit. In an extreme case, this Court could interfere under para. 35(1)(a), provided it appears that the Court below acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity, in passing the order sought to be revised. As I shall show presently, such is not the case here.

(2.) THE order, in question, was one refusing to stay the proceedings in the suit pending the disposal of a revision petition in this Court. In declining to stay proceedings, the trial Court remarked that the revision petition, then pending in this Court, did not relate to the five trees in question. THE revision petition, in question, arose out of a declaratory suit respecting Khatas 345/55 and 56, situate in village Malath, pargana Ubadesh, Kumarsain. That suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of THEog and his decision was upheld, in appeal, by the learned District Judge of Mahasu. THE revision petition, arising out of that suit, was also rejected by this Court on 2-12-1953. It does not appear further that during the pendency of this revision petition, this Court was requested to stay the proceedings in the other case. It may not be out of place to point out that in the last mentioned case, i.e., the suit for the recovery of Rs. 492/-, parties agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. THE finding of the arbitrator was that the trees, in question, were not situated in the lands, which formed the subject-matter of the declaratory suit. Consequently, the suit for the recovery of Rs. 492/- was dismissed, in accordance with the award. Under these circumstances, I am unable to hold that the Subordinate Judge's order dated 24-6-1953, refusing to stay the proceedings was vitiated by any material irregularity.

(3.) THUS, in whatever way the matter is looked at, the petition must fail. It is, accordingly, reject ed with costs assessed at Rs. 30/-.