Sita Ram vs Mt. Bhagwati

This is a revision application filed by Sita Ram mortgagee against the order of Sub-Judge Kathua allowing the amendment on payment of Rs.

12/- of the application made by Mt."" Bhagwati mortgagor for the restitution of the mortgaged property situate in village Hatti, Tehsil Kathua under

the Restitution of Mortgaged Properties Act, 2006.

A preliminary objection is taken by the counsel for the mortgagor Respondent that revision application does not lie as the order passed under the

Restitution of Mortgaged Properties Act is appealable u/s 12 of the Act and the appeal lies to the District Judge and from the order of the District

Judge appeal lies to the High Court. On behalf of the applicant it is argued that the Court allowed amendment under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC which

is not applicable and that revision lies against that order u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure

The question for consideration is whether or not the order allowing amendment of the petition filed under the J & K Restitution of Mortgaged

Properties Act is revisable. The Restitution of Mortgaged Properties Act of 2006 is self-contained and Section 12 of this Act provides that any

person aggrieved by an order of the Court under this Act may appeal to the District Judge and from an order made on appeal by the District Judge

to the High Court. There is no provision in this Act in regard to revision. u/s 15 of this Act the Government has been given powers to make rules

for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. Section 6 of the Rules is as under:

Except as otherwise provided by these rules the Court dealing with a petition shall be guided by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil

procedure, in so far as it may be applicable.

Under this rule the procedure in dealing with the petitions made under the Restitution of Mortgaged Properties Act is to be followed by the Court

as is laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, in so far it is applicable. Under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC the Court passed an order allowing the

amendment of the application. The order which has been made by the Court is made in respect of an application which was made under the

Restitution of Mortgaged Properties Act. That being so, the order was appealable and not revisable. Appeal is specifically provided u/s 12,

Restitution of Mortgaged Properties Act against the order of the Court under that Act.

The mortgagee applicant ought to have appealed against this order in the Court of District Judge and if aggrieved by the order passed by the

District Judge on appeal, he could have come up in further appeal to this Court. Revision application would not lie against that order and it is,

therefore, dismissed, but in view of the fact that an intricate point of law was involved in this case we make no order as to costs.