Skip to content


Amarjeet Singh and anr. Vs. Mst. Bhagwan Kaur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 5 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)1
AppellantAmarjeet Singh and anr.
RespondentMst. Bhagwan Kaur and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases Referred and Ramkarandas Radhavallabh v. Bhagwandas Dwarkadas
Excerpt:
.....be made by the court in view of the law laid down by the court in the aforesaid cases.;(b) civil procedure code - revision addt. d.j. recalling his earlier order and holding that civil court has no jurisdiction to suit--held, impugned order is without jurisdiction--order is set aside.;it is thus apparent that the additional district judge, sri ganganagar, passed the impugned order in exercise of his jurisdiction not vested in him under the law. the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.;revision allowed - - in my opinion the contention is well founded. rai bahadur rao raja seth hiralal air1962sc527 :the inherent powers are to be exercised by the court in very exceptional circumstances, for which the code lays down no procedure. bhagwandas dwarkadas..........under order 47 rule 1 and section 151, c.p.c. for reviewing the aforesaid order dated 19-5-71. the learned additional district judge allowed this application and recalled his earlier order dated 19-5-71 and held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. it against this order that this revision petition has preferred by the plaintiff.2. the learned additional district judge has found on the basis of certain authorities, which are mentioned in the impugned judgment the suit was triable by a revenue court. the learned additional district judge further found that the provisions of order 47 rule i, c.p.c., were not applicable to this case. he further came to the conclusion that the court was competent to recall the order or reverse the finding under section 151, c.p.c......
Judgment:

S.N. Modi, J.

1. This petition in revision arises out, of a suit for possession and cancellation of certain sale deeds relating to agricultural lands. The defendants contested the suit on the ground inter, alia that the suit was not triable by the civil court but was triable by the revenue court. One of the issue framed by the trial court reads as under:

Whether the suit is not triable by the civil court but is triable by the revenue court.

The Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, in whose court the suit is pending, decided the about issue in favour of the plaintiffs on 19-5-71, but subsequently on 18-4-72 an application was moved on behalf of the defendant under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151, C.P.C. for reviewing the aforesaid order dated 19-5-71. The learned Additional District Judge allowed this application and recalled his earlier order dated 19-5-71 and held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It against this order that this revision petition has preferred by the plaintiff.

2. The learned Additional District Judge has found on the basis of certain authorities, which are mentioned in the impugned judgment the suit was triable by a revenue court. The learned Additional District Judge further found that the provisions of Order 47 Rule I, C.P.C., were not applicable to this case. He further came to the conclusion that the court was competent to recall the order or reverse the finding under Section 151, C.P.C. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: Jagir Singh v. Settlement Comr. ; Konathala Sriramula and Ors. v. Board of Revenue : AIR1965AP395 ; Union of India v. D. Poraju : AIR1963Ori126 ; Ry. Rajaram Raja Sahab and Ors. v. T.R. Bhavani Sankar Joshi and Ors. AIR 1939 Mad. 193.

3. The learned advocate for the plaintiff-appellants has contended that the court below committed error in coming to the conclusion that it could recall its previous order under Section 151, C.P.C. According to learned Counsel Section 151, C.P.C, has no application to the facts of the present case. In my opinion the contention is well founded. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal : AIR1962SC527 :

The inherent powers are to be exercised by the Court in very exceptional circumstances, for which the Code lays down no procedure.

This principle has been later on reiterated by the Supreme Court in its decisions : Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. : [1964]5SCR946 and Ramkarandas Radhavallabh v. Bhagwandas Dwarkadas : [1965]2SCR186 . In view of the above authorities it is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 151, C.P.C, can be exercised by a Court only where no other procedure has been laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 114, read with Order 47 of the Code, deals with the procedure when review is permissible. The Code thus confers a right of review in proceedings, which fall within the purview of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. In other words there is express provision in the Code for review by the Court of its earlier order. If a case does not come within the purview of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no scope to resort to Section 151, C.P.C., for reviewing or setting aside or recalling the earlier order passed by the Court. The defendants, if they were aggrieved by the earlier order of the Court dated 19-5-71, could have filed a review petition, if the impugned order satisfied the conditions laid down under Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C It is not disputed before me that the order dated 19-5-71 could not be reviewed by the Court as it did not satisfy the requirements of Order 47 Rule 1, CPC The court below, too, has held that the case did not fall within the purview of Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. That being the admitted position no resort to Section 151, CPC, could be made by the Court in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. It is thus apparent that the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, passed the impugned order in exercise of his jurisdiction not vested ins him under the law.

4. The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Having regard to the circumstances of the ease the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court.


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