ARUN KUMAR Vs. SHYAMPATI KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have already heard the learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel, Mr. J. S. Arora, for the Opposite party.

(2.) This Civil Revision application was admitted for hearing on 01.09.2015. However, at the time of hearing of this Civil Revision application, the learned counsel, Mr. J.S. Arora, for the Opposite party raised objection regarding maintainability of this Civil Revision. According to the learned senior counsel, since by the impugned order dated 16.09.2006 passed by Sub Judge VI, Patna in Execution Case No.1 of 2005, the objection petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 47 Code of Civil Procedure has been disposed of revision under Sec. 115 Code of Civil Procedure will not be maintainable. The petitioner may, therefore, be directed to convert this Civil Revision application to an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. Verma, for the petitioner submitted that prior to admission in the year 2015 this objection was not raised by the other side. This Civil Revision is of the year 2006. Therefore, at the stage of hearing if the petitioner will convert this Civil Revision to a Civil Misc. application then it will only delay the disposal of the matter. Moreover, this Court has the jurisdiction to hear this Civil Revision application treating the Civil Revision as an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submitted that directing the petitioner to convert to Civil Misc. application and then hearing in admission matter are all technical matter. Even if it is converted then also the High Court will hear the matter. Mere levelling the application will not matter anything. However, the learned counsel submitted that against the impugned order revision will not be maintainable which has finally been held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Durga Devi 2010 (2) PLJR 954.