# Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd v. Dwarika

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 220
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-07-15
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jupiter-chit-fund-pvt-ltd-v-dwarika-39471
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

220
5(9,6,21 -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21 -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7('$//$+$%$'
'$7('$//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 9
7+( +21·%/( 906$+$, -
06$+$, -

&LYLO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

&' 6KDUPD
«5HYLVLRQLVW5HVSRQGHQW
9HUVXV
3UHYHHQ 6KDUPD «2SS SDUW\$SSHOODQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
6UL -- 0XQLU
0U 0 .KDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
0U +HPDQW .XPDU

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 6FRSH
DQG /LPLWV 1R &LYLO 5HYLVLRQ FDQ EH
HQWHUWDLQHG XQGHU $UWLFOH RI WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ
7KH
UHPHG\
E\
ZD\
RI
DSSHDO RU UHYLVLRQ DUH VWDWXWRU\ UHPHG\
7KH\ FDQ EH FUHDWHG DQG WDNHQ DZD\ E\
WKH
/HJLVODWXUH
2QFH
WKH
OHJLVODWXUH
EDUUHG
D
UHYLVLRQ
XQGHU
VHFWLRQ

&3& DJDLQVW DQ RUGHU SDVVHG LQ DSSHDO
RU UHYLVLRQ E\ WKH FLYLO FRXUW DQG VXFK
SURYLVLRQ KDV EHHQ XSKHOG E\ WKLV FRXUW
DQG DSH[ FRXUW LW FDQQRW EH XUJHG WKDW
WKH
UHYLVLRQ
LV
VWLOO
PDLQWDLQDEOH
TXHVWLRQ UHIHUUHG WR ODUJHU EHQFK
+HOG ±
7KH SRZHU XQGHU $UWLFOH DQG
VHFWLRQ &3& DUH H[HUFLVHG E\ WKH
+LJK
&RXUW
ZKHQ
WKH
UHPHG\
RI
DSSURDFKLQJ WKH +LJK &RXUW E\ ZD\ RI
UHYLVLRQ KDV EHHQ WDNHQ DZD\ E\ WKH
/HJLVODWXUH WKH HQWHUWDLQLQJ RI UHYLVLRQ
XQGHU
$UWLFOH

ZRXOG
EH
FLUFXPYHQWLQJ WKH SURYLVLRQ RI ODZ , DP
DOVR GRXEWIXO LI D ZULW SHWLWLRQ XQGHU
$UWLFOH FDQ EH HQWHUWDLQHG DJDLQVW DQ
RUGHU SDVVHG E\ WKH FLYLO FRXUW LQ DSSHDO
RU
UHYLVLRQ
:KDW
KDV
EHHQ
EDUUHG
GLUHFWO\ FDQQRW EH LQYRNHG LQGLUHFWO\

By the Court

1. This revision has been filed under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution
challenging the order dated 15.7.2000
passed in Misc. Appeal by the lower
appellate court. The stamp reporter has
reported that court fee paid in the revision
is Rs. 100/-. He has mentioned in his
report that the revision is not maintainable
in view of full bench decision in AIR
1979 All.218.

2. Prima facie the report appears to
be correct. But the learned counsel for the
revisionist Sri J.J. Munir has challenged
the report and has relied on four single
judge decisions of this court and has
urged that the revision is maintainable
under Article 227 of the Constitution. The
learned counsel urged that he did not file
the revision under section 115 of the civil
procedure code, therefore, the full bench
decision referred in the report was not
attracted.

3. A full bench of this court in M/s
Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarika
Diesh Dayal AIR 1979 All.(FB) 218 after
considering the state amendment has held
that a decision in appeal or revision by the
civil court arising out of suits or other
proceedings is not amenable to revisional
jurisdiction of high court under section
115 C.P.C. In another full bench decision
of this court in Ganga Saran vs. Civil
Judge Hapur Ghaziabad and others AIR
1991 All.(FB) 114 it has been held that a
writ under Article 226 against such order
is not maintainable and no mandamus can
be issued to a private individual. Both
these full bench decisions were examined
by the learned single judge in Matthan
Singh vs. IInd Additional District Judge,
Meerut 1996 (1) ARC 117 and it was held
3All] C.D. Sharma V. Preveen Sharm 221

that an order passed in appeal or
revision could neither be challenged by
way of appeal or revision nor writ
jurisdiction under Article 227 and decided
it accordingly. In Ram Pher Yadav vs.
Union Bank of India and others 1999 (2)
ACJ 1561 the learned judge entertained a
petition under Art.227 of the constitution
against an order passed in appeal arising
out of a suit but while dismissing it on
merits observed that, ' the court exercises
revision al jurisdiction under Art. 227 of
the constitution on the same grounds on
which such jurisdiction is exercised by the
High Court under section 115 C.P.C.'.
Similar observations were made by him in
M/s Om Rice Mill Jaspur and others vs.
Banaras State Bank Ltd. Kashipur and
another 2000 (1) ACJ 263. In Smt.
Brijendra Kaur and others vs. Ram
Agarwal and others 2000 (1) ACJ 535 the
learned judge converted the revision filed
under section 115 C.P.C. under Art. 227
and decided it as revision. But neither
decision contains any reason in support of
treating a revision filed under section 115
C.P.C. as a revision or a petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. I have perused these decisions but
I am not able to persuade myself to agree
with the view taken by the learned single
judge. No civil revision can be entertained
under Article 227 of the Constitution. The
remedy by way of appeal or revision are
statutory remedy. They can be created and
taken away by the Legislature. Once the
legislature barred a revision under section
115 C.P.C. against an order passed in
appeal or revision by the civil court and
such provision has been upheld by this
court and apex court it cannot be urged
that the revision is still maintainable. The
power under Article 226,227 and section
115 C.P.C. are exercised by the High
Court.
But
when
the
remedy
of
approaching the high court by way of
revision has been taken away by the
Legislature the entertaining of revision
under
Article
227
would
be
circumventing the provision of law. I am
also doubtful if a writ petition under
Article 227 can be entertained against an
order passed by the civil court in appeal
or revision. What has been barred directly
cannot be invoked indirectly. It has
already been held in a full bench of this
court in Ganga Saran (supra) that no writ
petition under Article 226 is maintainable
against such orders. The powers under
Article 227 are powers of superintendence
over subordinate courts and tribunals. It is
a power vested bythe constitution in the
High Courts to be exercised to ensure that
the courts or tribunals functions within its
jurisdiction but it cannot be invoked as a
matter of course against any order passed
in appeal or revision. It is not a revision
power ass held by learned single judge. In
some of the decisions the courts while
emphasizing limited nature of power
exercised under Art.226 and 227 have
observed that they are in nature of
revision
power.
But
from
such
observation it cannot be held the power
exercised
under
Art.227
is revision
power. There is a well defined difference
in existence and exercise of power. This
in my opinion is not only circumventing
the law but creating jurisdiction which
does not exist. Further the court fee
payable on revision is Rs. 10/-. But in this
revision the court fee paid is Rs. 100/-.
This court fee is payable in writ petition.
The rules of the court do not permit it.
The practice of paying Rs.100/- court fee
which is fee for writ petition and then
claiming that it may be treated as revision
under Art. 227 in absence of any rule
cannot be permitted.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

222
5. For all these reasons the following
questions are referred for being decided
by a larger bench.

1.
Whether
a
civil
revision
is
maintainable under Article227 of the
Constitution ?

2.
Whether by paying Rs. 100/- as court
fee a revision against an order passed by
the civil court against which a revision
under section 115 C.P.C. has been barred
can be entertained by this court under
Article 227 of the Constitution ?

3.
Whether under the rules of the court
the power under Article 227 can be
exercised by this court in a writ petition
against an order passed by civil court in
appeal or revision?

4.
Whether in absence of any procedure
prescribed by the rules of the court what
procedure would apply for exercising
power
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution?

5.
Whether a person against whom an
order has been passed by civil court in
appeal or revision has no remedy?

Since the aforesaid questions are
arising frequently, the office is directed to
place the records of this case within a
week before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
for constituting a larger bench.

5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

'LQHVK &KDQGUD 7LZDUL «5HYLVLRQLVW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRQLVW
6UL 3. 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SS 3DUWLHV
$*$
6UL 6DQMD\ 0LVKUD
6UL 670 5L]YL

&RGH RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH6HFWLRQ
&U3& WKH FRXUW FDQ WDNH DFWLRQ XQGHU
VHFWLRQ

&U3&
HYHQ
RQ
WKH
VWDWHPHQW LQ WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ LQ FKLHI RI
RQH RU PRUH ZLWQHVVHV 7KH HYLGHQFH
GRHV QRW PHDQ HYLGHQFH FRPSOHWHG E\
FURVV H[DPLQDWLRQ
+HOG
)RU LQYRNLQJ SURYLVLRQV RI VHFWLRQ
&U3&
WKH
FURVV
H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH
ZLWQHVV LQ WKH &RXUW LV QRW QHFHVVDU\
3DUD
By the Court

1. This revision has been preferred
against the order dated 28.9.1999 passed
by
IInd
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Kanpur Dehat in Special Sessions Trial
no. 7 of 99 summoning the applicant
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and issuing
non bail able warrant and process under
Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. against him.

2. The opposite party no,. 2 lodged
an F.I.R. against the applicant and some