High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Salik Ram v. Distt. & Sess. Judge & Others - WRIT - C No. 11279 of 2004  RD-AH 9242 (9 May 2006)
Court No. 4
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11279 Of 2004.
Salik Ram ........Petitioner.
District and Sessions Judge,
Jaunpur and others ......Respondents.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Heard leanred counsel for the parties.
The petitioer-plaintiff in a suit which is pending before the trial court filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. The trial court vide order dated 31.10.2003 directed for issue of notice on the application for grant of temporary injunction. Petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2003 preferred a revision before the revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revsisional court by the order dated 20.11.2003 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that since by the impugned order the trial court has only issued notice and fixed date for disposal of the application, no interference is required under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how the order passed by the revisional court in any way suffers from an illegality much less an illegality which may warrant interferecne under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in State of U. P. which is reproduced below:
"115. Revision.---(1) A superior Court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate Court where no appeal lies against the order and where the subordinate Court has---
(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregulality.
(2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificae on the first page of such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district Court but lies only to the High Court either because of valuation or becaue the order sought to be revised was passed by the district Court.
(3) The superior Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where,--
(i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; or
(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made.
(4) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the superior Court. ................"
In view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659; Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society Versus M/s Swaraj Developers, the view taken by the revisional court is perfectly in accordane with law.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to decide the temporary injunction application within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.