- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association v. B.C Jain And Others
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The revision before the Court was filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff (revisionist) challenging an order dated 17.9.2005 of the trial court. The trial court had refused to grant an ex parte temporary injunction without hearing the other side, issued notices to the defendants and directed that the file be put up for disposal of application No. 6C on 4.10.2005. The plaintiff approached the High Court by way of revision under Section 115 (as amended for the State of U.P. by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003). The opinion includes a reproduction of the amended Section 115 and its provisos.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended for the State of U.P.) is maintainable in respect of an interlocutory order (here, refusal to grant an ex parte temporary injunction) that does not finally decide the suit or proceeding.
- Whether the second proviso to Section 115 (allowing variation or reversal of an interlocutory order only where (i) the order, if varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury) applies to the impugned order.
Arguments of the Parties
Revisionist's (Appellant's) Arguments
- The revisionist challenged the trial court's order refusing an ex parte temporary injunction and sought relief under Section 115, CPC (as amended in U.P.).
- Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. Chellappan and Ors. to support the claim for revisional jurisdiction.
- As a last submission, learned counsel for the revisionist requested that the parties be directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments against the revision.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. Chellappan and Ors. (Hon'ble Apex Court) | Counsel relied on this authority concerning provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. | The Court observed that the provisions considered in that decision are not similar to the provisions applicable in the State of U.P. (post-amendment). The Court held that the facts and the authority were not applicable to the present matter, particularly in view of the second proviso to Section 115 as applicable in U.P. |
| Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers (Hon'ble Apex Court) | Authority cited in support of refusing revisional jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders not falling within proviso exceptions. | The Court stated that its conclusion — that the revisional court rightly refused to exercise jurisdiction — is supported by this decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by construing the amended Section 115, observing that the right to invoke revision under Section 115 arises only in respect of a "case which has been decided" by a subordinate court (including any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit, as per the Explanation). The Court applied that construction to the facts before it.
The Court noted that the primary proceeding (the suit) had not been finally decided; what existed was an interlocutory order on a temporary injunction application in which notices had been issued. Consequently, the impugned order could not be said to be a "case decided" within the meaning of Section 115 as amended for U.P.
The Court addressed the revisionist's reliance on A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. Chellappan and Ors., saying that the Apex Court's decision dealt with provisions of Section 115 that are not similar to those applicable in U.P. after amendment; therefore, that authority was not applicable to the present case. The Court emphasized the second proviso to the amended Section 115, which restricts power to vary or reverse interlocutory orders except where either (i) variation/reversal would finally dispose of the suit or (ii) allowing the order to stand would cause failure of justice or irreparable injury.
Applying those proviso conditions to the impugned order, the Court held that the order could not be brought within either clause (i) or clause (ii) — it neither finally disposed of the suit nor would allowing it to stand occasion a failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. On that basis the revisional court had correctly refused to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The Court observed that this conclusion is supported by the Apex Court decision in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court's final decision was to dismiss the revision. The core ruling is emphasized as follows:
DISMISSED
Implications:
- The revision filed under Section 115 (as amended for U.P.) had no force and was dismissed because the impugned interlocutory order did not constitute a "case which has been decided" and did not satisfy either exception in the second proviso to Section 115.
- The Court directed that the parties maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute until the application for temporary injunction is finally decided.
- The opinion does not purport to lay down any broader/new precedent beyond applying the amended statutory text and the cited authorities to the facts of this case; its direct effect is confined to the dismissal of the revision and the interim status-quo directive described above.
This summary is prepared strictly on the basis of the provided opinion and does not infer or add information beyond what the opinion expressly states.
1. This revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff who feels aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2005 passed by the trial court whereby the trial court refused to grant ex parte temporary injunction without hearing the other side. It therefore, issued notices to the defendants and directed the file to be put up for disposal of the application No. 6C on 4.10.2005, approached this Court. The provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as has been amended in the State of U.P. by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003 is reproduced below:
115. Revision.-The High Court, in case arising out of original suits or other proceedings (of the value exceeding one lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees as the High Court may from time to time fix, by notification published in the Official Gazette including such suits or other proceedings instituted before the date of commencement of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, or as the case may be, the date of commencement of such notification), and the district court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or district court, as the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears:
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court or the district court, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation, decided by the district court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under his section:
Provided further that the High Court or the district court shall not, under this section vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where:
(i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding; or
(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made:
Provided also that where a proceeding of the nature in which the district court may call for the record and pass orders under this section was pending immediately before the relevant date of commencement referred to above, In the High Court, such Court shall proceed to dispose of the same.
Explanation.-In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order deciding an Issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding.
2. A perusal of the provisions of section 115 clearly demonstrates that the right to invoke jurisdiction under Section 115 will arise only in a case which has been decided in an original suits or other proceedings by the subordinate court.
3. Here admittedly the suit has not been decided finally. It is only temporary injunction application on which notices have been issued. The order clearly demonstrates that this application has not been finally decided therefore, In my opinion, the order under challenge is not covered by the phrase "case decided'.
4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. Chellappan and Ors. . The aforesaid decision deals with the provisions of ~ Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is not similar to that which is applicable to the State of U.P. The facts of the aforesaid decision relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner in my opinion, are not applicable to the present case particularly in view of the provisions of second proviso which is quoted below:
Provided further that the High Court or the district court shall not, under this section vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where:
(i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding; or
(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made:
5. The impugned order cannot be said to be covered either under Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of the second proviso. In my opinion, the revisional court rightly refused to exercise jurisdiction and this view of mine is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers .
6. In view of the above discussion this revision has no force and is dismissed. Lastly it is submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that in the facts and circumstances of the case parties may be directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute till the application for temporary injunction is finally decided.
8. With the above observations, this revision is dismissed.
Alert