AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—The petitioners have filed the present revision application challenging the order dated 20th June, 2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Divison, Quepem dismissing Execution Application No. 10/2000 filed by the original decree holder Glorio Rosario Furtado. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the decree holder. Mr. D'' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection that in view of amended Section 115 of C.P.C., the present revision application is not maintainable. Mr. D''Costa placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and Others, submitted that u/s 115 of C.P.C. revision application is maintainable provided the order, if it has been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. Mr. D'' Costa further submitted that even if the impugned order passed is held to be illegal, the execution proceedings filed by the petitioners would not be disposed of and in such an eventuality, the Executing Court would have to proceed with the execution application. According to Mr. D''Costa, in terms of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 115 of C.P.C. revision can be entertained only if the impugned order is set aside, the suit or other proceedings should come to an end. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that this present revision application is not maintainable.
Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 adopted the submissions made by Mr. D''Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
Per contra, Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the impugned order is final order culminating the execution proceedings, the revision application is maintainable. Mr. Pangam also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Shivshakti Co-operative Housing Society (supra) and another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and Others Vs. Dharam Dev and Others, . According to Mr. Pangam, the object of amending Section 115 of C.P.C. is, inter alia, to provide remedy to a litigant against the order disposing of the suit or other proceedings finally and since in the present case, the execution application has been dismissed, the remedy by way of revision is available to the petitioners. Mr. Pangam further submitted that if the proceedings remained pending before the Court inspite of passing of an order which is challenged in revision, then revision would not lie. According to Mr. Pangam since by the impugned order the rights of the parties are finally adjudicated, the revision application is maintainable.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Section 115 prior to amendment from 1st July, 2002 read thus :
Section 115 (before amendment)
(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,
the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit :
Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where
(a) 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
(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any court subordinate thereto.
Explanation - In this section, the expression ''any case which has been decided'' includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding."
Section 115 (after amendment)
115.(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears-
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,
the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.
(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any court subordinate thereto.
(3) 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 High Court.
Explanation - In this section, the expression ''any case which has been decided'' includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.
From bare reading of Section 115 of C.P.C. before and after amendment, it is clear that by amendment clause (b) to proviso to subsection (1) of Section 115, C.P.C. has been deleted and proviso to subsection (1) and clause (a) has been substituted by proviso which provides that the High Court shall not, vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding any issue, in the course of the suit or proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.
It is well settled that while construing Statutes and, in fact, the written instruments, the Court has to adhere to grammatical and ordinary sense of the words unless the same would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with rest of the instrument, in which case, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity or inconsistency.
Applying the above principle of interpretation it is clear that in terms of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 115 of C.P.C., the High Court is barred from entertaining any revision application from an order passed in the course of the suit or other proceedings, except where the order if it has been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. In the present case, if the impugned order is held unsustainable in law, the only order that could be passed would be to direct the Executing Court to proceed further with the execution application and as such the execution proceedings would not stand finally disposed of. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in view of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 115, C.P.C., the revision application filed by the petitioner against the impugned order is not maintainable. I find myself unable to agree with Mr. Pangam that since by the impugned order, the rights of the rival parties have been adjudicated, the present revision application is maintainable. If such an argument is accepted, the same would render the entire proviso to subsection (1) of Section 115, C.P.C. nugatory.
In so far as the judgment in the case of Prem Bakshi (supra) relied upon by Mr. Pangam is concerned, the same does not advance the case of the petitioners in as much as from bare reading of the said judgment it is clear that the Apex Court was dealing with Section 115 of C.P.C. prior to its amendment. This is clear from paragraph 2 of the said judgment. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of Prem Bakshi (supra) would not be of any help to the petitioners. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the present revision application is not maintainable in terms of Section 115, C.P.C. as amended. Needless to mention that the dismissal of this revision application will not come in the way of the petitioners from availing of any other remedy if available in law.