# Ramrao Singh v. Usha Singh - **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1553 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-11-25 - **Case number:** First Appeal No. 467 of 2012 - **Bench:** B. Amit Sthalekar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramrao-singh-v-usha-singh-42744 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Cr.P.C. Section-397(2)-Criminal RevisionAgainst order rejecting application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.-being interlocutory in nature-revision-held-barred. Held: Para-18 Considering the above decisions of the Apex Court and after a careful reading of the decision of Full Bench of this in Court Father Thomas (supra), it is abundantly clear that an order rejecting the application under Section156(3) Cr. ## Text 3 All] Ramrao Singh Vs. Usha Singh 1553 negative, that is, a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or a larger Bench of the same court rendering a decision taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by the said judgment, does not amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The answer to the second part of the question is that failure of the court to take into consideration an existing decision of the Supreme Court taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by its judgment would amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. But a failure to take into consideration a decision of the High Court would not amount to any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record." 13. Keeping in view the law on this point, this Court is of the considered view that the subsequent decision of a co-ordinate Bench would not be a ground to review the judgment, which is the scope of appeal. 14. Accordingly, the review on the basis of a subsequent judgment of a coordinate Bench deciding the controversy otherwise cannot be a ground to allow the review petition. 15. As discussed above, this review sans merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. -------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J. First Appeal No. 467 of 2012 Ramrao Singh... Petitioner Versus Usha Singh... .Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Sri R.K. Singh Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Ali Hasan, Sri Ishtiyaq Ali Hindu Marriage Act-1955-Section 28First Appeal against the order passed under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Actby Civil Court-appeal under section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act-not maintainable. Held: Para-3- From a perusal of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, it is clear that no appeal lies against an order passed under Section 24 of the Act. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant or by Sri Ishtiyaq Ali , learned counsel for the respondent that proceedings under Section 13 of the Act for divorce are still pending in the civil court. It is also admitted by both the parties that these are not proceedings under Section 19 of the Family Court Act. Case Law discussed: 2006 All. C.J. 1936 (Delivered by Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.) 1. I have heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the impugned judgment dated 2.7.2011 passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The provision of appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is laid down under Section 28 of the Act which reads as under:- "28. Appeals from decrees and orders.- (1) All decrees made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to 1554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (2) Orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act under Section 25 or Section 26 shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable if they are not interim orders, and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (3) There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of costs only. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of [ninety] days from the date of the decree or order." 3. From a perusal of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, it is clear that no appeal lies against an order passed under Section 24 of the Act. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant or by Sri Ishtiyaq Ali , learned counsel for the respondent that proceedings under Section 13 of the Act for divorce are still pending in the civil court. It is also admitted by both the parties that these are not proceedings under Section 19 of the Family Court Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2006 All. C.J, 1936, Kiran Bala Srivastava (Smt) vs. Jai Prakash Srivastava. Proceedings in that case arose under the Family Court Act and it was against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that the appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act. Present proceedings are not under the Family Court Act but under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. Even otherwise the appeal under the Family Court Act is cognizable by a Division Bench as per the provisions of the Act itself. 6. In view of the above legal position, the present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. -------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 26.11.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI(II),J. Criminal Revision No. 523 of 2013 Preeti Srivastava... Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.N. Tiwari Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate Cr.P.C. Section-397(2)-Criminal RevisionAgainst order rejecting application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.-being interlocutory in nature-revision-held-barred. Held: Para-18 Considering the above decisions of the Apex Court and after a careful reading of the decision of Full Bench of this in Court Father Thomas (supra), it is abundantly clear that an order rejecting the application under Section156(3) Cr.P.C.