J. PAREKH Vs. BATHELA SUGRIVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the application of Bathela Sugriva, who is non-applicant 1 before me, made under Section 192, Succession Act, the lower Court has made an order under Section 194 ibid placing him in possession of the property of his deceased wife Mt. Bajravatibai. That application was against one J. Parekh who, as was alleged and has been found, took forcible and illegal possession of the houses in dispute and he has come up in revision against the lower Court's order impleading as non-applicant 2 one Gulamali who has since taken a transfer from non-applicant 1. Whether revision lies against an order or not depends on contentions and circumstances which arise in each particular case. No doubt Section 209 ibid does lend some colour to the contention that the order under Section 194 ibid is final and is not open to revision. On behalf of non-applicant

(2.) , Mr. Amlekar relied on Khaja Kutubuddin v. Khaja Faizuddin (06) 2 N.L.R. 72 in support of his argument that revision does not lie. But as has been held in Sakharam v. Vinayak A.I.R. 1927 Nag. 253 following Sato Koer v. Gopal Sahu (07) 34 Cal. 929 there is no bar as such to the revision being entertained, the limits and the grounds of interference being however another matter. These limits and these grounds have to be sought in Section 115, Civil P.C, as has been held in Bhabatarini Debi v. Profulla Kumar and Gourishankar v. Debiprasad and the question before me is whether the contention of Mr. Gupta who appeared for the applicant offers any basis for my interference. 2. His contention is that Section 192 ibid did not authorise Bathela Sugriva to make an application if, as he alleged and has been found, he was in possession and was dispossessed. In other words, Mr. Gupta contends that the provisions of Section 192 ibid applied only where the trespasser to be proceeded against had wrongfully taken vacant possession. There is however nothing in Section 192 ibid nor in Mahamadbhai v. Bai Havabai A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 507 which was cited by him that supports his view. I cannot see why a claimant, who was in possession and has been dispossessed, was intended to be in a less favoured possession than one who was never in possession at all but sought it for the first time. The argument does not impress me as sound and reasonable and I must reject it. The application for revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee us. 25.