# Smt. Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal & Anr v. Sri Sudheer Mohan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 993
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-25
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 6686 of 2018
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-raj-shri-agarwal-ram-shri-agarwal-anr-v-sri-sudheer-mohan-ors-48693
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, Art.
227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
Section 115 (3) (ii)
of C.P.C. as
applicable in U.P., Revision - O. 6, R.
17,
Amendment
of
Pleadings
-
Application
for
amendment
of
the
petitioners/plaintiffs
to
incorporate
certain facts in the plaint rejected -
Held - revision is maintainable against
such order u/s 115 (3) (ii) of C.P.C as
applicable in the State of U.P. - writ
petition
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution
of
India
is
not
maintainable - Section 115 (3) (ii) of
C.P.C. as applicable in Uttar Pradesh
clearly states that the order, if allowed
to stand would occasion a failure of
justice or causes irreparable injury to
the party against whom it is made,
revision would lie - since the order
deciding the amendment application
would have a direct bearing on the
right of either parties, if it is allowed
or rejected - thus the decision on an
application under Order 6 Rule 17 of
C.P.C. would amount to a case decided
and revision would lie (Para 21, 22,
24)
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Smt. Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Sri Sudheer Mohan & Ors.
993
relevance on the facts of the present case
and
the
constitutional
and
statutory
provisions in question. Therefore, those
judgments are of no help to the petitioners.

Natural Justice:-

27. So far as the challenge to the
impugned assessment order is concerned,
we find that the copies of all relied upon
documents have been given by the
Assessing Authority to the petitioner and he
has also been allowed to inspect the
records. Opportunity of hearing is also
reflected from the notices including the
notice dated 05.01.2022 in which the date,
place and time for appearance has been
informed to the petitioner by the Deputy
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Division17, Ghaziabad (Annexure-25 to the writ
petition). The
petitioner
submitted
a
detailed reply running in more than 100
pages which has been considered by the
respondent
No.4
and
the
impugned
assessment order under Section 74 read
with Section 122 of the UPGST Act has
been passed which runs in about 163 pages.
Against the impugned order, the petitioner
has a right of appeal under Section 107 of
the UPGST Act, 2017. Therefore, for all the
reasons aforestated, we do not find any
substance in challenge to the impugned
assessment order on the ground of alleged
breach of principles of natural justice or
provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST
Act/ UPGST Act..

28. For all the reasons afore-stated,
the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it
open for the petitioner to challenge the
impugned Assessment Order in appeal
before the appellate authority, if so advised.
----------
(2022)07ILR A993
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 6686 of 2018

Smt. Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri
Agarwal & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Sudheer Mohan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri Anoop Trivedi,
Sri Rishabh Agarwal, Sri Syed Mohammad
Abbas Abdy

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Namit Srivastava, Sri Kshitij Shailendra,
Sri Parvez Alam

Civil Law - Constitution of India, Art.
227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
Section 115 (3) (ii)
of C.P.C. as
applicable in U.P., Revision - O. 6, R.
17,
Amendment
of
Pleadings
-
Application
for
amendment
of
the
petitioners/plaintiffs
to
incorporate
certain facts in the plaint rejected -
Held - revision is maintainable against
such order u/s 115 (3) (ii) of C.P.C as
applicable in the State of U.P. - writ
petition
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution
of
India
is
not
maintainable - Section 115 (3) (ii) of
C.P.C. as applicable in Uttar Pradesh
clearly states that the order, if allowed
to stand would occasion a failure of
justice or causes irreparable injury to
the party against whom it is made,
revision would lie - since the order
deciding the amendment application
would have a direct bearing on the
right of either parties, if it is allowed
or rejected - thus the decision on an
application under Order 6 Rule 17 of
C.P.C. would amount to a case decided
and revision would lie (Para 21, 22,
24)
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society,
Nagpur Vs Swaraj Developers & Others, (2003)
6 SCC 659

2. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation
Vs Baldev Raj Ram Murti 2002 SCC Online P & H
814

3. Uttam Chand Kothari Vs Gauri Shankar Jalan
& ors. (2005) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 147

4. Rama Shanker Tiwari Vs Mahadeo & ors.
1968 A.W.R. 103 (FB)

5. Sultan Leather Finishers Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs
A.D.J. Court no.4, Unnao & ors. 2006 (1) AWC
825 (LB)

6. Mukhtar Ahmad Vs Sirajul Haw & ors. 2006
(3) AWC 2182

7.
Virudhunagar
Hindu
Nadargal
Dharma
Paribalana Sabai & ors. Vs Tuticorin Educational
Society & ors. (2019) 9 SCC 538

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The petitioners, by means of the
present writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, have assailed the
impugned order dated 21.07.2018 passed
by Additional District Judge, Court no.18,
Agra in Original Suit No.609 of 2015, by
which the application for amendment of the
petitioners-plaintiffs to incorporate certain
facts in the plaint has been rejected.

3. A preliminary objection has been
raised by Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned
counsel for the respondents regarding
maintainability of the writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
inasmuch as according to him, a revision
under Section 115 of C.P.C. shall lie against
the order of trial Court, therefore, the
present writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is liable to be
dismissed being not maintainable.

4. To the aforesaid objection, learned
counsel for the petitioners has contended
that after amendment in Section 115 of
C.P.C. in the year 2002, a proviso has been
inserted, the perusal of which shows that if
the amendment application is allowed, then
it amounts to case decided and only then
the revision would lie whereas in the
instant case, the amendment application has
been
rejected,
therefore,
the
order
impugned does not fall within the ambit of
case decided, hence, the present writ
petition
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution of India is maintainable.

5. In support of his case, learned
counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the judgement of the Apex court in the case
of Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing
Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers &
Others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659;
Punjab Small Industries and Export
Corporation Vs. Baldev Raj Ram Murti,
reported in 2002 SCC Online P & H 814
& Uttam Chand Kothari Vs. Gauri
Shankar Jalan and Others, reported in
(2005) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 147.

6. To rebut the aforesaid submissions,
learned counsel for the respondents has
contended that rejecting or allowing the
amendment application under Order 6 Rule
17 amounts to disposal of a case decided in
a Original Suit and, thus, it being a case
decided, the revision against the order
impugned is maintainable. Hence, in view
7 All. Smt. Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Sri Sudheer Mohan & Ors.
995
of the fact that effective alternative remedy
by way of revision under Section 115 of
C.P.C. is available to the petitioners, the
present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable.

7. In alternative, he submits that even if,
without admitting that the argument of counsel
for the petitioners is correct that the order
impugned does not fall within the ambit of a
case decided, even then the revision would lie,
as is evident from sub-section (3) of Section
115 of C.P.C. as applicable in Uttar Pradesh
inasmuch as conditions stipulated in sub-section
(i) & (ii) of sub-section 3 of Section 115 of C.P.
C. are independent, and on existence of any of
conditions as enumerated in Section 115 (3) (i)
& (ii) of C.P.C., the revision would lie and not
the writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. In such view of the fact, it
is submitted that the present writ petition is not
maintainable.

8. For better appreciation of facts,
Section 115 defining revision in the Code
of Civil Procedure is reproduced here-inbelow:-

"(1) The High Court may call
for the record of any case which has been
decided by any Court subordinate to such
High Court 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 may make such
order in the case as it thinks fit:

[Provided that the High Court
shall not, under this section, vary or
reverse any order made, or any order
deciding an issue, in the course of a suit
or other proceeding, except where the
order, if it had been made in favour of the
party applying for revision, would have
finally disposed of the suit or other
proceedings.]

(2) The High Court shall not,
under this section, vary or reverse any
decree or order against which an appeal
lies either to the High Court or to any
Court subordinate thereto.

(3) A revision shall not operate
as a stay of suit or other proceeding
before the Court except where such suit
or other proceeding is stayed by the High
Court."

9. It is also apt to reproduce Section
115 of C.P.C. as applicable in the State of
U.P. which have been substituted w.e.f.
July, 1st, 2002.

"115. Revision (1) A superior
court may revise an order passed in a
case decided in an original suit or other
proceeding by a subordinate court where
no appeal lies against the order and
where the subordinate court has --

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law ; or

(b)
failed
to
exercise
a
jurisdiction so vested ; or

(c) acted in exercise of its
jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity.

(2) A revision application under
sub-section (1), when filed in the High
Court, shall contain a certificate on the first
page of such application, below the title of
the case, to the effect that no revision in the
case lies to the district court but lies only to
the High Court either because of valuation
or because the order sought to be revised
was passed by the district court.
996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3)The superior court shall not,
under this section, very or reverse any
order made except where,--

(i) the order, if it had been made
in favour of the party applying for revision,
would have finally disposed 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 is made."

10. An emphasis has been laid by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that
reading of proviso to Section 115 of C.P.C.
of Central Act clearly suggests that revision
is barred against any order of the trial Court
in a suit unless and until the conditions
enumerated in the proviso, namely, where
the order, if it had been made in favour of
the party applying for revision, would have
finally disposed of the suit or other
proceedings exist. Accordingly, he submits
that as the rejection of application of
amendment in the plaint does not bring the
suit to an end, thus, the suit being not
decided, the order rejecting the amendment
application would not fall within the ambit
of case decided. Therefore, the revisioin is
barred and petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is maintainable.

11. Now, to appreciate the aforesaid
argument of learned counsel for the
petitioners, it would be apt to compare two
sections as incorporated in Central Act of
the C.P.C. and its applicability in the State
of U.P.

12. From the comparison of proviso
of Section 115 of C.P.C. in the Central Act
and Section 115 (3) (i) of C.P.C. as
applicable in the State of U.P., it is manifest
and clear that revision is maintainable
against any order if it had been in favour of
the party applying for revision would have
finally disposed of the suit or other
proceeding. Thus, it is manifest that the
proviso to Section 115 of Central Act has
been adopted by the State of U.P. under
sub-section (3) (i) of Section 115 of C.P.C.
and are common, but by U.P. Amendment,
(ii)
to
Section
115
(3)
has
been
incorporated which provides that the
revision will also lie against any order
passed by the trial Court if the conditions
elucidated in Section 115 (3) (ii) of C.P.C.
exists, i.e., if the order is allowed to stand,
it would occasion a failure of justice or
cause irreparable injury to the party against
whom it is made. So in either of the two
contingencies, as referred in Section 115
(3) (i) & (ii) as applicable in U.P., revision
is maintainable.

13. The learned counsel for the
petitioners
has
laid
emphasis
upon
paragraph no.32 of the judgement of Shiv
Shakti
Co-operative
House
Society,
Nagpur (supra), to buttress his submission,
paragraph no.32 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"32. A plain reading of Section
115 as it stands makes it clear that the
stress is on the question whether the order
in favour of the party applying for revision
would have given finality to suit or other
proceeding. If the answer is 'yes' then the
revision is maintainable. But on the
contrary, if the answer is 'no' then the
revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if
the impugned order is interim in nature or
does not finally decide the lis, the revision
will not be maintainable. The legislative
intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which
are interim in nature, cannot be the subject
matter of revision under Section 115. There
is marked distinction in the language of
Section 97(3) of the Old Amendment Act
7 All. Smt. Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Sri Sudheer Mohan & Ors.
997
and Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act.
While in the former, there was clear
legislative intent to save applications
admitted or pending before the amendment
came into force. Such an intent is
significantly absent in Section 32(2)(i). The
amendment relates to procedures. No
person has a vested right in a course of
procedure. He has only the right of
proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by
a statutory change the mode of procedure is
altered,
the
parties
are
to
proceed
according to the altered mode, without
exception, unless there is a different
stipulation. "

14. In the opinion of the Court, the
said judgement is not applicable in the
facts of the present case, inasmuch as it
was a case dealing with an issue where
application under Order 39 Rule 1
C.P.C. has been rejected, against which
revision was preferred and the Apex
Court in those facts and circumstances
held that no revision is maintainable
against the order passed by the trial
Court, if the order is interlocutory in
nature.

15. So far as the judgement in the
case of Uttam Chand Kothari (supra)
is concerned, the said judgement is also
not applicable in the facts of the present
case inasmuch as it was not considering
the case under Section 115 of C.P.C. as
applicable to the State of U.P. and
further the judgement and arguments
raised by the respondents which shall
be dealt with in later part of this
judgement were also not considered by
the Gauhati High Court.

16. Similar is the case in the case
of Punjab Small Industries and Export
Corporation (supra).

17. Now coming to the judgement of
Five Judges Bench of this Court in the case
of Rama Shanker Tiwari Vs. Mahadeo
and others, reported in 1968 A.W.R. 103
(FB) relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondents, the Full Bench considered
the meaning of the 'case decided' and held
that the order allowing or disallowing an
application for amendment in pleading is a
case decided and is revisable in this
Section, if the amendment sought has or is
likely to have direct bearing on the rights
and obligation of the parties. Paras 23 & 24
of the said judgement is reproduced herein-below:-

"23. I am, therefore, of opinion
that every order granting or dismissing an
application for amendment of pleading will
not give rise to a case decided revisable
u/S. 115 of the Code. An order allowing or
disallowing an application for amendment
of pleading may however, give rise to a
case decided revisable under that Section if
the amendment sought has or is likely to
have a direct bearing on the rights and
obligations of the parties and affects or is
likely to affect the jurisdiction of the Court.
To this extent the decision in Mst. Suraj
Pali's case can, in may opinion, be said to
be no longer good law.

24. The opinion of the majority of
Judges constituting the Full Bench is that
an order passed u/O. VI R.17 of the CPC,
either allowing an amendment or refusing
to allow an amendment, is a "case decided"
within the meaning of that expression in
S.115, Code of Civil Procedure."

18. The five Judges Bench judgement
concludes the controversy in the instant
case,
since
the
order
deciding
the
amendment application would have a direct
bearing on the right of either parties, if it is
allowed or rejected. Thus, the decision on
998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of
C.P.C. would amount to a case decided and
revision would lie. The said finding is also
supported by the first line of Section 115
(1) which states that " superior Court may
revise an order passed in a case decided in
an original suit",reading of said line
suggests that legislation has envisaged
cases where there may be circumstances
where an order passed in original suit may
amount to a case decided, though the suit
has not been decided, and revision is
maintainable against the said order.

19.

Similarly,
para-17
of
the
judgement reported in 2006 (1) AWC 825
(LB) in the case of Sultan Leather
Finishers Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. A.D.J.
Court no.4, Unnao and others being
relevant in the context of present case is
reproduced herein-below:-

"In
one
another
case
in
Sambhaunath Digambar Jain v. Mohanlal
and Ors. 2003 (9) SCC 219, where the
application under Order VI, Rule 17 and
Order VIII, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil
Procedure was rejected by the trial court
declining to permit the defendant to amend
the written statement and counter-claim, it
was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
such application can be challenged by
invoking revisional jurisdiction.

For convenience paras 3 and 4 of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sambhavnath's case (supra) is reproduced
as under :

"The respondents herein filed a
suit against the appellant for setting aside
the said order of the Registrar. On
13.9.1982, the appellant filed written
statement wherein an averment was made
that the portion of property where the girl's
school was running was the property of the
trust. It may be mentioned that the
Registrar did not include the said portion
of the school as trust property. On
15.9.1982,
the
appellant
filed
an
application under Order VI, Rule 17 and
Order VIII, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil
Procedure read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure and sought to
incorporate in its counter-claim the said
school as a trust property. On 15.9.1982,
the appellant filed an application under
Order VI, Rule 17 and Order VIII, Rule 6A
of the Code of Civil Procedure read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and sought to incorporate in its counterclaim the said school as a trust property by
way of an amendment to its written
statement.
The
said
application
was
rejected by the trial court and being
aggrieved by the said order, the appellant
filed a revision which was dismissed as not
maintainable. That is how the parties are
before us.

Learned counsel for the appellant
has urged that the order passed by the trial
court was revisable and view taken by the
High Court is erroneous. We are of the view
that the High Court for ends of justice
ought to have considered the application on
merit keeping in view Rule 6A of Order VIII
of the Code of Civil Procedure and in
accordance with the law. We, therefore,
hold that the above order rejecting the
application of the appellant by the trial
court was revisable. "

20. In this regard, it may also be apt
to refer to paragraph-8 of the judgement of
this Court reported in 2006 (3) AWC 2182,
Mukhtar Ahmad vs. Sirajul Haw and
Others, wherein this Court has quashed the
order of revisional Court rejecting the
revisioin against the order passed in the
amendment application. Paragraph-8 of the
said judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:-
7 All. Smt. Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Sri Sudheer Mohan & Ors.
999

"8. In view of the aforesaid, the
District Judge was not correct in holding
that a revision against an order rejecting
the
amendment
application
is
not
maintainable. The District Judge was
under law obliged to see as to whether the
order passed by the court below rejecting
the amendment application amounts to case
decided or as to whether in the facts of the
case revisional authority should vary or
reverse the order passed by the court below
in view of sub-section (3) of Section 115 of
the Civil Procedure Code. It is needless to
point out that this Court in the Judgment in
Smt. Pushpa alias Pooja v. State of U.P.
and Ors. 2005 (3) AWC 2587:AIR 2005 All
187, has taken note of the judgment in the
case of Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing
Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers, and
has explained the legal proposition laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shiv Shakti (supra) in paragraphs
15 and 16 of the said Judgment, which may
be reproduced here in below:

"15. The judgment of the Apex
Court relied by the counsel for the
petitioner in Shiv Shakti Cooperative
Housing
Society,
Nagpur
v.
Swaraj
Developers and Ors. (supra) lays down that
the revision is not maintainable against an
interlocutory or interim order. The Apex
Court while considering provisions of
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
made following observation in paragraph
32: .........(at page 2442 of AIR).

"32. A plain reading of Section
115, as it stands makes it clear that the
stress is on the question whether the order
in favour of the party applying for revision
would have given finality to suit or other
proceeding. If the answer is "yes" then the
revision is maintainable. But on the
contrary, if the answer is "no" then the
revision is not^ maintainable. Therefore, if
the impugned order is of interim nature or
does not finally decide the lis, the revision
will not be maintainable. The legislative
intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which
are interim in nature, cannot be the subjectmatter of revision under Section 115."

16. As noted above, the order
passed under Section 24 disposed of finally
the issue of interim maintenance to a
spouse during pendency of proceedings.
After passing the order under Section 24 of
the Act nothing more is required to be done
with
regard
to
question
of
interim
maintenance
during
pendency
of
proceedings and the fact is that the order
passed under Section 24 finally disposes
the application for interim maintenance;
hence as laid down by the Apex Court in
above quoted paragraph the revision shall
be maintainable against an order under
Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955."

21. Section 115 (iii) of C.P.C. as
applicable in Uttar Pradesh clearly states
that the order, if allowed to stand, results in
failure of justice or causes irreparable
injury to the party against whom it is made,
the revision under Section 115 of C.P.C as
applicable
in
the
State
of
U.P.
is
maintainable.

22. Viewed from this angle, if any
order illegally passed by the Court below
on any application is allowed to stand
affecting rights of parties, it is obvious that
it would cause failure of justice or cause
irreparable injury to the party against
whom it is made, therefore, if said
condition is present, the revision against
any order passed by the Court below vide
Section 115 (3) (ii) of C.P.C. as applicable
in U.P. would lie.

23. The Apex Court in the case of
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma
Paribalana
Sabai
and
Others
Vs.
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tuticorin Educational Society and Others,
reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538 that where
there is availability of remedy under CPC,
normally petition under Article 227 would
not lie. Paragraph nos.11, 12 & 13 of the
said judgement is reproduced here-inbelow:

"11.Secondly, the High Court ought
to have seen that when a remedy of appeal
under section 104 (1) (i) read with Order
XLIII, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, was directly available, the
respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken
recourse to the same. It is true that the
availability of a remedy of appeal may not
always be a bar for the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. In
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan
& Ors.1, this Court held that "though no
hurdle can be put against the exercise of the
constitutional powers of the High Court, it is
a well recognized principle which gained
judicial recognition that the High Court
should direct the party to avail himself of
such remedies before he resorts to a
constitutional remedy".

12. But courts should always bear
in mind a distinction between (i) cases where
such alternative remedy is available before
civil courts in terms of the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure and (ii) cases where such
alternative remedy is available under special
enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora
provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial
authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases
falling under the first category, which may
involve suits and other proceedings before
civil courts, the availability of an appellate
remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may
have to be construed as a near total bar.
Otherwise, there is a danger that someone
may challenge in a revision under Article 227,
even a decree passed in a suit, on the same
grounds on which the respondents 1 and 2
invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court.
This is why, a 3 member Bench of this Court,
while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai
vs. Ram Chander Rai, pointed out in Radhey
Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath that "orders of civil
court stand on different footing from the orders
of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than
judicial/civil courts.

13.
Therefore
wherever
the
proceedings are under the code of Civil
Procedure and the forum is the civil court, the
availability of a remedy under the CPC, will
deter the High Court, not merely as a measure
of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of
discipline and prudence, from exercising its
power
of
superintendence
under
the
Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not
to have entertained the revision under Article
227 especially in a case where a specific
remedy of appeal is provided under the Code
of Civil Procedure itself."

24. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the present writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is not maintainable as
remedy by way of revision under Section 115
of C.P.C. is available to the petitioners. It is,
accordingly, dismissed with no order as to
costs.
----------

(2022)07ILR A1000
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 331 of 2022

Satish Kumar Balmiki & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents