ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against an order passed by the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Nalagarh by which he dismissed the application of the petitioner for grant of leave to defend the suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and passed a decree in favour of the respondents for a sum of Rs. 1,05,368/- with interest on the principal sum of Rs. 88,000/. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents that the revision petition is not maintainable. It is argued that by virtue of Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, when an order is appealable either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto, the High Court shall not vary or reverse any decree or order in that application. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Khem Chand v. Hari Singh, AIR 1979 Delhi 7. In that case while rejecting an application under Order XXXVII for leave to defend, the Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 9,495/-. The said decree was challenged by way of revision. The Court held that the decree being appealable, no revision was maintainable under Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court observed as follows:

(2.) Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment in M/s. D. Shanlal v.Bank of Maharashtra, 1979 Current Civil Cases 175. The question which has arisen before me did not arise in that case. The Court had only to consider whether the appeal against the decree passed in a summary suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. after the defendant had failed to deposit the conditional security was maintainable. Hence, the ruling has no relevance in this case.

(3.) My attention is also drawn to a judgment in Lagandeo Singh v, Satyadeo Singh and others, AIR 1992 Patna 153. There also the present question did not arise. The only question was whether an appeal would lie against the decree passed on consent when the factum of compromise was disputed.