BANSI LAL Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting proposition is Involved in the present review petition arising out of order dated 2-8-2003 passed by me whereby revision petition directed against the order passed by the subordinate Court, was dismissed being not maintainable under Section 115 (2) of C. P. C. When this revision petition came up for consideration before me, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondent regarding maintainability of the revision petition. Reference was made to Section 115 sub-section 2 of CPC to canvas that in view of the specific statutory bar in respect to appealable order, revision is not maintainable arid is liable to be dismissed only on that score. Counsel for the revision petitioner (review petitioner) was not present at the time of hearing of the revision and accordingly following order was passed by me :.

(2.) The revision petitioner has sought to invoke review jurisdiction of this Court under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule -1 C. P. C. for setting aside the aforesaid order passed by me. It has been urged by Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that sub sec. 2 of Section 115 of C. P. C. was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court and it was not on the statued book when the revision petition was decided applying said provision. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of record, which calls for review of judgment impugned.

(3.) Mr. A. V. Gupta, learned senior Advocate appearing along with Ms. Swati Gupta for respondent at whose instance, revision petition was dismissed, has strenuously opposed the review primarily on the ground that it does not fall within the scope of Order 47, Rule 1 C. P. C. It is argued even if order is erroneous having been passed contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench, the same cannot be subjected to review of this Court, though the petitioner may have a valid ground for preferring an appeal against this order. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi reported as (1997) 8 SCC 715.