Prem Bahadur Dubey vs Heera Lal & Ors.

D.S.Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Rajiv Misra, holding brief of Sri R. P. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the defendantapplicant.

This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, is directed against the order dated 25th November, 1988 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi in original Suit No. 95 of 1983 between Heera Lal and others and Prem Bahadur Dubey for specific performance against the legal heirs of one Deoraj whereby the prayer of Prem Bahadur Dubey, the defendantapplicant, for recasting the Issue No. 1 has been rejected.

Issue No. 1, as it stands, is as follows:

"Whether Deoraj deceased was sole owner bhumidhar of the plots In dispute? If so, its effect."

The prayer of the defendantapplicant was that the word ''owner'' occurring between the words ''sole'' and ''bhumidhar'' in the Issue No. 1 be deleted as existence of the word ''owner'' would affect him adversely.

It cannot be disputed that a person cannot be a bhumidhar of an agricultural land unless he is owner thereof. In the investigation of the question of bhumidhari rights of a person qua an agricultural land, examination of his ownership is inherent. The addition or deletion of the word ''owner'' cannot be said to affect adversely, in any manner, the investigation of the question of bhumidhari rights of a person relating to agricultural land, the amendment sought by the defendantapplicant, in the opinion of the court, was misconceived.

Clause (2) of the second proviso to Section 115 of the Code, as amended by the State of Uttar Pradesh, mandates that the revisional court should not vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in course of a suit or other proceedings, except where the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. The impugned order, if allowed to stand, in the opinion of the court, cannot be held to occasion any failure of justice or cause any injury much less an irreparable injury to the defendantapplicant. The impugned order is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.

In the result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.

Revision dismissed.