AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Mehrotra, Actg. C.J.
By the order under challenge, u/s 115, CPC the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class Joginder-nagar. District Mandi, has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Respondent and held that the order passed by an Arbitrator on November 1, 1981 in a dispute between the parties was null and void and was not binding upon the plaintiff Further, that on account of illegal order of the Arbitrator the subsequent proceedings, including the order of attachment dated December 12, 1988 passed by the Recovery Tehsildar, Mandi, was also not binding upon the plaintiff.
An appeal lay against the impugned decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge on February, 1991, u/s 96, Code of Civil Procedure. No appeal was filed by the Society which, instead, has approached this Court through the present application u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure.
Sub-section (2) of Section 115, after its amendment with effect from February 1, 1977, by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) provides that:
(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....
Since, admittedly, an appeal lay before the District Judge against the decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge on February 5, 1991, the power of revision u/s 115, CPC cannot be exercised by this Court in the matter. The present application for revision is held as not maintainable and is disposed of as such.
Shri D.C. Jishtu prayed that liberty may be left open to the defendant-applicant to assail the decree under challenge in appropriate proceedings. It is obvious that in the view taken by me in the present case no specific order need be made for it is open to a party to seek redress in a forum available to him in law.