LexVISHESH KUMAR versus SHANTI PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
32 A B VISHESH KUMAR v. SHANTI PRASAD March 12, 1980 (V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J Code of Civil Procedure-S. 115-State amend1nents bifurcated revisional jurisdiction between High Court and District Court-High Court-ff possessea revisional jurisdiction from an order of District Judge disposing of revision C pelitiou. D E I' G " Provincial Small Cause Courts Act-Section 25-High Court-If possesses jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. against an order of District Judge under section 25 of the Act disposing of a revision petition. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers on the High Court of & State poWer to remove any jurisdictional error committed by a subordinate court in cases where the error cannot be corrected by resort to its appellate jurisdiction. From its inception there was increasing resort to the revisiooal jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 115. To alleviate the burden of arrears and reduce the vo1ume of litigation which had reached an insuportable point, s. 115 was amended by successive state amendments, each amendment attempt~ ing to close the gap left by its predecessor. The amendments conferred revisional jurisdiction both on the High Court and the District Court each enjoying mutually exclusive revisional powers. The consistent object b~hind the suc- coosive amendments was to divide the work load of revision petitions between the High Court and the District Court and decentralise the jurisdiction. A proviso was added to s. 115 by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1973 declaring that "in respect of cases ...... arising out of original suits of any valuation decided by the District Court the High Court alone shall be com- petent to make an order under this section." The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 superseded the acheme of bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction with effect from I st February 1977. With certain modifications the position reverted to what it was under the original s. 115. An exception was made where a revision petition under 1. 115 had been admitted after preliminary hearing before 1st February 1977; it would continue to be governed by s. 115 as it stood before that date. But the Code of Civil Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act 1978 substantially ·restored the status quo ante. Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was amended from time to time in its application to the State of U.P. 'The first amendment sub- stituted the District Judge for the High Court. A further amendment made in 1972 added a proviso which declared that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes Court the power of revision under s. 25 would vcat in the High Court. r ._.L. \ VISHESH KUMAR V. SHANTI PRASAD 33 The two questions that fell' for consideration were : (il whether the High .\ <:wrt possesses the revisional jurisdiction under s. 115 of the Code of CTvil tl'rocedv.re in respect of an oro'r of the District Court under s. 115 disposin1 of a revision petition and (ii) whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction under s. 115 against an order of District Court under s. 25 Pro- vincial Small Cause Courts Act disposing of a revision petition, HEID : The High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under 8 1. 115 Code of Civil Procedure over the revisional order made by the District 'Court under that section. [40 HJ (1) To recognise a revisional power in the High 'Court over the revisional --order passed by the District Court would plainly defeat the object of the legis- lative scheme. The intent behind the bifurcation of jurisdiction-to reduce the number of revision petitions filed in the High Court-would be frustrated. The scheme would lose its meaning. If a revision petition is permitted to the High Court against the revisional order of the District Court arising out ~of a suit of a value less than Rs. 20,000 a fundamental contradiction would be allowed to invade and destroy the division of revisional power between the High Cwrt and the District Court, for the High Court would then enjoy jurisdictional power in respect of an order arising out of a suit of a valuation -of below Rs. 20,000 /-· [39 G-H] (b) What the proviso introduced in s. 115 by the Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1973, stated was that no matter what the valuation of the original suit, !f a case arising out of such
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.