MOHD RAFIQ Vs. GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay of seventy five days in filing the Revision Petition is sought. While considering the said application, it was found desirable to examine as to whether the Revision Petition is maintainable.

(2.) During the pendence of the suit for 'Permanent Injunction' captioned as Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Vs. Mohd Rafiq & Ors, petitioner (defendant no. 1) has chosen to remain absent, so has been proceeded in Ex-parte. For setting aside the Ex-parte proceedings has filed an application, which has been rejected, but at the same time learned trial Court has recorded that in the interest of justice, petitioner (defendant no. 1) is given the right to participate in the proceedings, if he desires to do so. Dis-satisfied with the same, petitioner has opted to file the Revision Petition, but only after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(3.) Whether the Revision Petition against such order is maintainable, has to be answered in negative in view of the clear position of the Proviso to Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C). In terms of the Proviso, revision against an interlocutory order is not to be maintained. It is only the final orders or orders which, if passed in favor of the revisionist would result in termination of the suit proceedings, the revision is to be maintained.