MULK RAJ Vs. RAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against an order of the Sub Judge, Kathua, by which the application filed by the objector, Ram Dass, under O. 21, Rule 58 C. P. C. was accepted and it was held that the two Kholas situate at Hiranagar, which were attached in execution at the instance of the decree -holder applicant, were in possession of the objector and were, therefore, released from attachment.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the trial Court did not allow the applicant to produce further evidence in the proceedings. The applicant had examined two witnesses on 2nd January 1956. On 19th January 1956 he put in an application praying that he might be allowed an opportunity to produce further witnesses on his own responsibility. But this application was turned down by the lower Court. On behalf of the respondent an objection is taken that the revision application is not competent inasmuch as another remedy is open to the applicant and he can bring a suit againt the respondent. In this connection Note. 8 under S. 115 of Chitaleys Code of the Civil Procedure, 1950 Edition, at pages 1212 to 1216 is relied upon. It is clear therefrom that an order under O. 21, Rules 58, C. P. C. will not be interfered with in revision as a general rule as it can be challenged by a separate suit. It is equally clear that this rule is not inflexible and the High Court may interfere where the special circumstances of a particular case call for such interference, e.g. where it is not clear whether another remedy is available to the applicant, where another remedy is barred. Counsel for the applicant has been unable to indicate any special reasons why such interference by way of a revision is necessary In this case. The revision application therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.