LexVIDYODAYA TRUST AND ORS. versus MR. MOHAN PRASAD R AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A VIDYODA YA TRUST AND ORS. v. MR. MOHAN PRASAD R AND ORS. AUGUST 25, 2006 B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--Section 115 (as amended)-Revisionary jurisdiction--Scope of-Held: All interlocutory Orders are not subject to C revision-Orders which have the effect of finality of proceedings can only be subjected to revision. The respondents filed an application under Section 92 CPC seeking leave of Court to institute the suit under Section 34 of the Trust Act, 1882 in respect of Vidyodaya Trust and applied to the Court for direction for D management and administration of the said trust. The Court granted the leave to respondent to institute the suit. Appellants contested the suit on the ground that the suit was actuated by personal motive. The District Court framed preliminary issue as to whether the suit is maintainable under Section 92 CPC. The District Court held that the suit was maintainable. Aggrieved appellant filed revision in terms of Section 115 E CPC. High Court held that the revision was not maintainable as the order of District Court was an interlocutory one. Thereafter appellant filed Writ Petition before High Court praying for writ, direction or order questioning the order of District Court. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the view taken in revision was not correct as it cannot be held that F the High Court had no jurisdiction. Both these orders are under challenge before this Court. In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that they have been placed at a very peculiar position. One Single Judge held that the Civil Revision was not maintainable. Another Single Judge observed that the G view expressed in the Civil Revision was not correct, but since the merits were discussed in the order passed in the Civil Revision, the Writ application was not maintainable. H 390 VIDYODAYA TRUSTv. MOHAN PRASAD R[PASAYAT, J.] 391 Disposing of the appeals and directing High Court to hear Revision A on merits, the Court HELD: 1. A new proviso has been inserted to Section 115 CPC by virtue of which the revisional jurisdiction is substantially curtailed. A revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless the requirement of the proviso is satisfied. The proviso creates an embargo in exercise of B revisional power. Judged in the aforesaid background the view of the Single Judge that the Civil Revision was not maintainable is clearly indefensible. If it is held that the suit in terms of Section 92 CPC is not maintainable, that would have the result of final disposal of the suit. However, the counsel made an attempt to justify the order by stating that C the matter was also dealt with on merits. That would not improve the situation. The Civil Revision was clearly maintainable. (394-H; 395-A-BI Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (2003( 6 SCC 675, relied on. D 2. In view of the order passed in the appeal relating to Section I 15 CPC no order is necessary to be passed in respect of the judgment in the writ petition. It may be noted that the Single Judge observed that the Civil Revision was maintainable and, therefore, declined to entertain the writ petition. This order was passed on the face of the order passed by Single Judge holding that it was not maintainable. The same, therefore, is not E justifiable •. But it is not necessary to deal with that matter as the Civil Revision shall be heard on merit (395-C, DI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3679 of2006. From the Judgments and Orders dated 5.2.2004 in C.R.P. No. 1260/ F 2003 and dated 20.8.2004 in W.P.(C) No. 14961/2004 (F) of the High Court of Kerala at Emakulam. Harish N. Salve, U.U. Lalit, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar and Bina Madhavan (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.) for the Appellants. Sunil Gupta and A Raghunath for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. G H 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A While in one of the appeals challenge is to the legality of the judgment dated 5.2.2004 passed in CRP No.1260 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the other appeal challenge is to the judgment passed on 20.8.2004 in WP(C) No.14961 of2004 by another learned Single Judge of the said High Court. B Essentially the factual position is as follows: Respondents as plaintiffs filed OP No.238 of 2000 before the District Court, Ernakulam un
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.