# (Facilities for Enforcement) Order, 1963 of the Government of Isle as amended by the

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 64/IVh-36
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1977-03-24
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 64/IVh-36
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/facilities-for-enforcement-order-1963-of-the-government-of-isle-as-amended-by-163222
- **Pages:** 1

## Text

179
(Facilities for Enforcement) Order, 1963 of the Government of Isle as amended by the
Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Amendment (No. 2) Order, 1964.
13.
COSTS
C.L. No. 64/IVh-36 dated 24th March, 1977
The costs awarded by the courts from time to time during the pendency of the
case shall henceforth be taxed in the decree and not deposited in cash in the court.
C.L. No. 105/IVh-36 dated 9th June, 1977
In view of the new provisions of sub-section (2) of section 35 B, C.P.C. the
aforesaid instruction stands withdrawn. The new provisions regarding drawing up an
order in respect of unpaid costs as made in sub-section (2) of section 35B, C.P.C. shall
henceforth be followed by all courts concerned.
C.L. No. 44/VIIIb-177/Admn.(F) dated 9th July, 1981
All the Presiding Officers should ensure that the costs awarded by the courts in cases
in favour of the Government are shown in the decree in question invariably and without
fail so that the Government may not be put to any loss on this count.
Non-maintainability of Revision under S. 115 of the CPC against the issuance of
notice on an application moved under O. XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, as laid down in WPNo. 802 (M/S) of 2007 - Lalit Mohan Srivastava Vs.
District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar and Others
C. L. No. 18/2007 Dated: 19.5.2007
The Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 802 (M/S) of 2007- Lalit Mohan
Srivastava Vs. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar and others delving deep into the plethora
of rulings, to set at rest the confusion, if any, in respect of no-maintainability of Civil
Revision against issuance of notice on an application moved under order XXXIX Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been pleased to observe on 23.2.2007 as under:
―.....A plain reading of all the three judgments namely; Shiv Shakti (Supra),
Surya Dev Rai (supra) and Gayatri Devi show that revision under section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be maintainable at the stage of interlocutory
proceeding. A close reading of provision contained in Maharashtra as well as in
the State of U.P. at the face of record shows that order passed by the trial court
while issuing a notice on an application under 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure shall be interlocutory order and it cannot be termed as case
decided. Needless to say that provision under Section 115 Code of civil Procedure
is a procedural Law and ipso facto the provision itself cannot be termed to be
declaration that revision shall be maintainable even if case is not decided...‖

Therefore, while enclosing herewith a copy of the judgment and order mentioned
above, I am directed to request you to kindly bring to the notice of all the Judicial Officer
within your administrative control the contents of the above judgment for strict
compliance.