Skip to content


Ashok Kumar Vs. the Union Territory of Chandigarh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 2912 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1980P& H205
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 113, 115 and 151 - Order 46
AppellantAshok Kumar
RespondentThe Union Territory of Chandigarh and anr.
Excerpt:
.....but has not been so declared by the high court to which that court is subordinate or by the supreme court, the court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the opinion of the high court'.from the language of the said section, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is clearly borne out......1979, whereby his application under section 113 read with order 46 and section 151 of the code of civil procedure has been dismissed.2. the learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that no revision petition is maintainable against the order of the learned subordinate judge, dismissing the plaintiffs application under section 113 of the code of civil procedure, because it is for the trial court to state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the high court. since the trial court was not satisfied that the case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any act. ordinance etc., the high court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, writ not direct the court to refer the same to the high.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial Court, dated 18th October 1979, whereby his application under Section 113 read with Order 46 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that no revision petition is maintainable against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dismissing the plaintiffs application under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because it is for the trial Court to state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court. Since the trial Court was not satisfied that the case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act. Ordinance etc., the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, writ not direct the Court to refer the same to the High Court. I find force in this contentions. Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as under:--

'Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, any Court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High. Court, and the High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit:

Provided that where the Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act. Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act. Ordinance a Regulatiat4 the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act. Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court'. From the language of the said Section, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is clearly borne out. The trial Court has categorically stated that, 'I am further of the opinion that no ease is made out under Section 113 of the Code of Civi1 Procedure for making reference to the High Court for declaring the said Regulations as invalid or illegal'. Thus, the discretion exercised by the trial Court cannot be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by this Court. Consequently the revision petition is dismissed. However, counsel for both the parties agree that a direction be given to the trial Court that the suit be decided within three months from today, if possible, From the nature of the suit, I find that not much evidence may be required to be adduced by the parties. The matter can be disposed of expeditiously. It is, therefore, directed that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within three months from the date already fixed in the suit. However, there will, be no order as to costs.

3. Petition discussed.


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