Sanjay Kumar Naik And Others vs Anwar Ali And Others

A.C. Behera, J.

This civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11 in the suit vide C.S No.54 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jharsuguda) against the Opposite Parties(plaintiffs in the suit vide C.S No.54 of 2024) challenging an order of rejection to their petition dated 09.08.2024 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 passed on dated 09.08.2024 in C.S No.54 of 2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jharsuguda.

Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners(defendantnos.9 to 11) and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties(plaintiffs).

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners (defendant nos.9 to 11) submitted that, this revision (arising out of the suit vide C.S No.54 of 2024 value at Rs.60,000/-) is not entertainable before this Court, i.e., before the High Court.

According to him(learned counsel for the petitioners), the revision has been valued at Rs.60,000/-(rupees sixty thousand) and in view of the amendment to Section 115 of the C.P.C.(Orissa Amendment) made through Orissa Gazette Ext. No.1785 dated 02.11.2010(w.e.f. 11.11.2010) Notification No.11730, Legis. Dated 2nd November, 2010, when the value of the civil revision arising out of the suit or proceeding is less than rupees five lakhs, then, the revision arising out of the impugned order passed in the suit or proceeding is not entertainable before the High Court on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, because, according to the above Orissa Amendment to Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908, any civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. like this revision at hand arising out of the suit or proceeding having its value not exceeding five lakhs rupees is not maintainable before the High Court, as the revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. before the High Court is maintainable arising out of a suit or proceeding, only where, the value of such suit or proceedings exceeds five lakhs rupees.

The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties(plaintiffs) did not dispute to the aforesaid Orissa Amendment to the Section 115 of the C.P.C. w.e.f. 11.11.2010.

So, by taking the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the value of the suit (from which, this revision has arisen) and the Orissa Amendment of Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 w.e.f. 11.11.2010 into account, it is held that, this revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) is not entertainable before this Court, i.e., before the High Court, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the value of the suit, from which, this revision has arisen is Rs.60, 000/-(rupees sixty thousand), which is much less than rupees five lakhs and the revision against the impugned order was entertainable before the jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the learned District Judge, Jharsuguda instead of this Court.

When, it is held that, this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) is not entertainable before this Court on the ground of the valuation of the suit, from which, this revision has arisen, for the reasons assigned above and the same was entertainable before the learned District Judge, Jharsuguda, then at this juncture, the ends of justice shall bestly be served, if this revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) will be disposed of finally without entering into the merits of this revision giving liberty to the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) for filing of the same before the jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the court of learned District Judge, Jharsuguda challenging the impugned order.

On the basis of the aforesaid observations, this revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) is disposed of finally giving liberty to the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) to file revision challenging the impugned order before the jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the learned District Judge, Jharsuguda in the District of Jharsuguda annexing the certified copy of this judgment within a month of this judgment and in case of filing of revision by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11), before the learned District Judge, Jharsuguda, the District Judge, Jharsuguda shall entertain the same without questioning about the limitation in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, as they (petitioners, defendant nos.9 to 11) had approached the wrong forum, i.e., this Court bonafidely and shall dispose of the same as per law on merit as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties.

Certified copy of the impugned judgment be returned to the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) substituting the same for filing of revision before the jurisdictional revisional court.

Parties are directed to keep the matter as it is in status quo for a period of one month hence, as the petitioners have been directed to file the revision within a period of one month hence.

As such, this civil revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) is disposed of finally.