Nagappa vs Leelavati and Others

Hari Nath Tilhar, J.—This revision u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed from the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 1993, delivered by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli (Sri H.G. Ramesh) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 124 of 1995, arising out of judgment and order dated 31-3-1995, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Hubli, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 122 of 1992, allowing the petition u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure The Sessions Judge had allowed the Criminal Revision in part and modified the order of maintenance as mentioned in the order dated 3-8-1995. Criminal Revision No. 124 of 1995 itself had been filed by the present revision Petitioner.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In my opinion, the present revision u/s 115, CPC is completely misconceived; u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court is entitled to call for the record of any case decided by the subordinate Court i.e., the subordinate to such High Court within the meaning of the expression ''subordinate Court'' as defined in the Code itself. Section 3 of the CPC defines the subordinates of Court, provides that for the purpose of the Code of Civil Procedure, the District Judge is subordinates to the High Court and every Civil Court is a Court subordinate to District Court and every Court of the Small Causes is subordinate to High Court and District Court. Thus, u/s 115 of the C.P.C, revision is maintainable from the orders of subordinate Civil Courts and not from the orders of Sessions Judge or Judicial Magistrates which are subordinate Criminal Courts. There are two separate procedural codes, one is known as Civil Procedural Code and other is the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure u/s 397 provides for revision from the orders of Sessions Court as well as of subordinate Criminal Courts to the High Court or the Sessions Judges Court. It is also provided u/s 399 that if a person has filed a Criminal Revision from the order of subordinate Criminal Court and revision has been decided against him either in whole or in part, he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 397 read with Section 401 and no second revision will lie to the High Court at his instance. So Code of Criminal Procedure debars a second revision challenging the order of revision by the person who had filed the first revision. When there is a bar, no further revision will lie or to be entertained at his instance, because second revision cannot be filed by a party who had filed a revision before Sessions Judge. This bar cannot be side-tracked and cannot be allowed to be side-tracked by any party by taking recourse to proceedings u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 115 does not extend to subordinate Criminal Court. The two codes are complete by themselves.

Thus considered, in my opinion, the present revision petition is completely misconceived and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he may be given an opportunity to file an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or that it may be observed be that he will have the liberty to file Section 482 petition. The Judge of the High Court has got no powers to give any advice to any party or to a Counsel. The Court at this juncture is not going to express any opinion. He can or he cannot file a petition u/s 482. It is for his Counsel to advise and when such a petition is filed, the Court may consider the maintainability thereof.

With this observation, the civil revision is hereby dismissed.