Skip to content


Sri Ram Narayan Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 3391 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1978All214
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1974 - Sections 115
AppellantSri Ram Narayan Jaiswal
RespondentSmt. Rajeshwari Devi and ors.
Advocates:S.K. Verma, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
.....or irreparable damage if allowed to stand. - - the proviso to section 115 of the code of civil procedure now lays down that the high court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- (a) the order if it had been in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, of (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. that being so, it cannot be said that the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the applicant......learned counsel for the defendant applicant was unable to point out any error in the order of the learned district judge except for saying that the learned district judge ought not to have rejected the revision but should have ordered it to be returned for presentation to this court. even if the order of the learned district judge is treated to be an order returning the revision for presentation to this court, the revision from the order of the munsif would be highly belated as the revision in this court was filed on 21st dec., 1977 that is, more than three months after the return of the revision by the court of the district judge. there is another objection to the maintainability of the revision. the proviso to section 115 of the code of civil procedure now lays down that the high.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Deoki Nandan, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the court of the District Judge, Ghazipur dated 7th Sept., 1977 rejecting a revision under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. which had been filed in that court on 31st May, 1977 from an order of the Court of the IIIrd Additional Munsif, Ghazipur dated 26th May, 1977 in Suit No. 203 of 1973 dismissing the defendant's application for amendment of written statement. The learned counsel for the defendant applicant was unable to point out any error in the order of the learned District Judge except for saying that the learned District Judge ought not to have rejected the revision but should have ordered it to be returned for presentation to this Court. Even if the order of the learned District Judge is treated to be an order returning the revision for presentation to this court, the revision from the order of the Munsif would be highly belated as the revision in this Court was filed on 21st Dec., 1977 that is, more than three months after the return of the revision by the Court of the District Judge. There is another objection to the maintainability of the revision. The proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure now lays down that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where-

(a) the order if it had been in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, of

(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.'

2. In the instant case it cannot be said that if the impugned order of the Munsif had been made in favour of the party applying for the revision, that would have finally disposed of the suit. Further it would be open to the applicant to canvass before the appellate court in an appeal from the decree in the suit, if any, that the application for amendment was wrongly dismissed. That being so, it cannot be said that the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the applicant.

3. In this view of the matter, the revision cannot be said to be maintainable. It is accordingly rejected as such.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //