# (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:** 1977-08-05
- **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-163223
- **Pages:** 2

## 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aforesaid instruction stands withdrawn.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.
180
Heavy Cost to be imposed in Cases where unnecessarily enlarged affidavits are filed
C. L. No-37/2007: Admin 'G' Dated: 29 August, 2007.
On the above subject, I am directed to say that in the Chief Justices Conference2007 upon consideration of matter the practice of the entire pleadings of the parties being
reproduced in the affidavits of the witnesses instead of coffining them to the facts
required to be proved by the witnesses has been deprecated. The Hon'ble Court has been
pleased to direct that the courts should carefully scrutinize the affidavit before serving
copy on the opposite parties and wherever it is found that the scope of the affidavits have
been unnecessarily enlarged, such affidavits should be rejected with heavy cost.
I am, therefore to request you to kindly bring the contents of the Circular Letter to
the notice of all the Judicial Officers working under your supervisory control for strict
compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court.
14.
APPEALS
(i)
Admission
C.L. No. 66/Xg-1, dated 13th November, 1955
Munsif's appeals should not be admitted as a matter of course without
scrutinizing the judgments under appeal and considering whether they can be disposed of
summarily. A greater use of the provision of Order XLI rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure in the disposal of Civil Appeals should be made.
(ii)
Appellate officers for debt relief cases
C.L. No. 145/IVg-102/Admn.(A) dated 14th September, 1977
It encloses Government Notification No. 18-1(4)/77 - (ii). dated August 5, 1977,
which appoints following officers as appellate officers for the whole of the district in
which they are for the time being posted, to hear the appeals u/s 8 and 23 of U.P. Debt
Relief Act, 1977:-
1.
In districts of Almora, Banda, Fatehpur, Hamirpur, Lalitpur, Pauri,
Pratapgarh and Tehari, the District Judges;
2.
In districts of Agra, Aligarh, Allahabad, Bareilly, Gorakhpur, Kanpur,
Lucknow, Moradabad, Meerut and Varanasi, the Judges of the Small
Cause Court; and
3.
In other districts the Civil Judge (at the headquarters) exercising powers of
the court of small causes.
(iii)
Remand
C.L. No. 63 dated 31st August, 1965
Officers hearing civil appeals should avoid remanding of cases with a view to
show larger disposal and should follow strictly the procedure laid down in rules 24, 25
and 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure.
C.L. No. 13/VIId-103 dated 22nd January, 1971
Serious view will be taken if the aforesaid instructions are not complied with
strictly.