# Sushil Kumar v. Kanvar Sain Garg - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 981 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-13 - **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sushil-kumar-v-kanvar-sain-garg-44096 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 (U.P. Amendment) - Revision - Pecuniary jurisdiction - Amendment of plaint - Valuation exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- - Revision lies before High Court and not District Judge - Government notification enhancing appellate jurisdiction does not 982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES affect revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. - Stamp Reporter bound by judicial pronouncement. PROCEDURE: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging: Order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut allowing amendment of plaint in Original Suit No. 736 of 2015, and Order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the District Judge, Meerut returning the revision memo on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. RESULT: The order of the District Judge returning the memo of revision is held to be legal and valid. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing revision under Section 115 C.P.C. before the High Court. The Court declined to examine the validity of the trial court's order dated 23.02.2016 on merits. It is clarified that if the revision is filed again before the High Court, the Stamp Reporter shall be guided by this judgment. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Stamp Reporter Section for compliance. Order accordingly. ## Text 7 All. Sushil Kumar Vs Kanvar Sain Garg 981 26. Reverting to the case in hand, the appeal of the petitioner is pending for the last 15 years. There can not be a justification for keeping the appeal/revision pending for such inordinate period. Even if the appellant/revisionist is not cooperating or delaying the matter, the authority should after giving no more opportunity, should decide the matter ex-parte. 27. As a sequel to above, I find that action of the respondents in keeping the petitioner's appeal pending for the last 15 years, is arbitrary and illegal. 28. In view of the above, I hold that in the matter of major punishment, the appellate authority should make endeavour to decide the appeal within a reasonable time i.e. three months but it should not be later than six months. In case there is delay beyond six months, the authority concerned would record reasons for the delay occurred. 29. Accordingly a direction is issued upon the second respondent no. 2- Collector, district Gautam Budh Nagar to decide the petitioner's appeal expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of communication of the order. 30. With the above direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. 31. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to first respondent- Principal Secretary (Revenue), to issue necessary directions to all the appellate authorities/revisional authorities (Commissioners and Collectors) to decide the appeals/revisions/review in the light of judgments of Supreme Court, referred hereinabove. ----------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. Matters Under Article 227 No.- 4227 Of 2016 Sushil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Kanvar Sain Garg ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal HEADNOTE: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 (U.P. Amendment) - Revision - Pecuniary jurisdiction - Amendment of plaint - Valuation exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- - Revision lies before High Court and not District Judge - Government notification enhancing appellate jurisdiction does not 982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES affect revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. - Stamp Reporter bound by judicial pronouncement. PROCEDURE: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging: Order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut allowing amendment of plaint in Original Suit No. 736 of 2015, and Order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the District Judge, Meerut returning the revision memo on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. RESULT: The order of the District Judge returning the memo of revision is held to be legal and valid. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing revision under Section 115 C.P.C. before the High Court. The Court declined to examine the validity of the trial court's order dated 23.02.2016 on merits. It is clarified that if the revision is filed again before the High Court, the Stamp Reporter shall be guided by this judgment. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Stamp Reporter Section for compliance. Order accordingly. (Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.2.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-respondent seeking amendment of the plaint in Original Suit No. 736 of 2015. The order dated 17.5.2016 passed in Civil Revision No. Nil of 2016 (Misc. No.773 of 2016), whereby the District Judge has returned the memo of revision for being presented before proper court in view of the fact that the valuation thereof was Rs.9,10,000/-, which according to the revisional court was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction, is also under challenge. The petitioner has prayed for a direction being issued to the District Judge to decide the revision himself in view of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act No.14 of 2015. 2. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner sought to challenge the order of the trial court dated 23.2.2016 allowing the amendment application by filing a revision under Section 115 C.P.C. before this Court. However, the Stamp Reporter reported the revision to be not maintainable as the valuation is below Rs.25,00,000/-. He has also placed on record a notice affixed outside the Stamp Reporter Section which is to the following effect:- "NOTICE The learned counsels and their clerks are hereby, informed that as per Government Notification No.:1599/ 79-V-1-15-1(ka) 19/2015 dated 07.12.2015 the F.A.F.O. & Civil Revisions etc. will lie in this Hon'ble Court against the judgements/orders passed by the Civil Judge in which the valuation is above Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs) and S.C.C. Revision above valuation of One Lakh (1,00,000/-). 7 All. Sushil Kumar Vs Kanvar Sain Garg 983 This is with immediate effect. Dated: 21.01.2016 By Order of Registrar (S.R.)" 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the report of the Stamp Reporter, the petitioner was compelled to file revision before the District Judge, Meerut who has now passed the impugned order returning the memo of revision. It is urged that the petitioner is being shunted from one court to other and is being rendered remediless. 4. The filing of revision against the order of the subordinate court is governed by Section 115 C.P.C. which in its application to the State of U.P., reads as under :- "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. (3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary 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. (4) 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 superior court. Explanation I.- In this section,- (i) the expression 'superior court' means- 984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (a) the district court, where the valuation of a case decided by a court subordinate to it does not exceed five lakh rupees; (b) the High Court, where the order sought to be revised was passed in a case decided by the district court or where the value of the original suit or other proceedings in a case decided by a court subordinate to the district court exceed five lakh rupees; (ii) the expression 'order' includes an order deciding an issue in any original suit or other proceedings. Explanation II.- The provisions of this section shall also be applicable to orders passed, before or after the commencement of this section, in original suits or other proceedings instituted before such commencement. [Vide U.P. Act 14 of 2003*, S.2] 5. A revision against the order of the subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order is to be preferred before the superior court as defined under Explanation I to Section 115 C.P.C. Thus, the expression 'superior court' refers to the District Court where the valuation of the case decided by a court subordinate to it does not exceed Rs.5,00,000/- and the High Court where the order sought to be revised was passed in a case decided by the District Court or where the value of the original suit or of other proceedings in a case decided by the court subordinate to the District Court exceeds Rs.5,00,000/-. 6. Concededly, in the instant case, the trial court which passed the order on the amendment application is a court subordinate to the District Court. However, the valuation of the suit is Rs.9,10,000/- which is above Rs.5,00,000/-. Consequently, in view of the definition of the 'superior court', it would be the High Court which would be competent to entertain the revision. 7. The 'Notice' following which the Stamp Reporter appears to have submitted the report that revision is not maintainable refers to the Government Notification No. :1599/79-V-1-151(ka)19/2015 dated 07.12.2015. By the aforesaid notification, certain provisions of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 were amended. Section 3 of the said Act is reproduced for sake of reference :- "3. In section 21 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), in clause (b)- (a) for the words "one lakh rupees" the words "five lakh rupees" shall be substituted; and (b) for the words "five lakh rupees" the words "twenty-five lakh rupees" shall be substituted." 8. Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 speaks of appeals from orders of Civil Judges and Munsifs and reads thus :- 7 All. Sushil Kumar Vs Kanvar Sain Garg 985 21. Appeals from Subordinate Judges and Munsifs.- (1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Civil Judge shall lie,-- (a) to the High Court in any case other than a case referred to in clause (b); (b) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which or in any proceeding arising out of which the decree or order was made (whether instituted or commenced before or after the relevant date) did not exceed one lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees as the High Court may fix from time to time by notification in the official Gazette. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-section and sub-sections (1-A) and (1-B) relevant date means the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 or as the case may be, the date of commencement of notification made under clause (b) of sub-section (1). (1-A) ........................ (1-B) .......................... (2) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Munsif shall lie to the District Judge. (3) ...................... (4) The High Court may, [* * * *], direct, by notification in the official Gazette, that appeals lying to the District Judge under sub-section (2) from all or of the decrees or orders of any Munsif shall be preferred to the Court of such Civil Judge as may be mentioned in the notification, and the appeals shall thereupon be preferred accordingly." 9. The aforesaid section deals with the filing of appeals before the High Court and the District Court and is not concerned with filing of revisions, which as noted above, is governed by Section 115 C.P.C. The notification referred to above seeks to amend Section 21 of the Parent Act and as a result thereof an appeal shall lie to the District Judge where the value of original suit in which or in other proceedings arising out of decree or order was made did not exceed Rs.1,00,000/- or such amount not exceeding Rs.25,00,000/- as the High Court may fix from time to time by notification in the official gazette. In pursuance thereof, the High Court has issued a notification on 05.02.2016 fixing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge for purposes of entertaining appeal as Rs.25,00,000/-. However, the same again does not in any manner repeal or amend Section 115 C.P.C. 10. In the considered opinion of the Court, the 'Notice' by the Registrar (S.R.) notifying that the revisions will lie in this Court against the order of the Civil Judge only in cases where 986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES valuation is above Rs.25,00,000/- is based on misreading and misinterpretation of the notification in question. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the District Judge returning the memo of revision for being presented before the court of competent pecuniary jurisdiction. 12. Since the petitioner has the remedy of filing revision under Section 115 C.P.C. and thus, this Court declines to go into the validity of the order of the trial court dated 23.2.2016 and leaves it open to the petitioner to present the memo of revision before the court of competent jurisdiction. 13. It is clarified that in case the memo of revision is presented by the petitioner again before this Court, the Stamp Reporter shall be guided by the pronouncement made by this Court in the instant matter. 14. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Stamp Reporter Section for information and necessary action. 15. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ABHAY MAHADEO THIPSAY, J. Application U/s 482/378/407 No.- 4413 Of 2016 Akash Mishra @ Vakeel. ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Abhishek Singh Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate The petitioner is one of the accused in the charge-sheet No.262 of 2014 filed on 08.11.2014 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No.28, District Lucknow. Initially, the crime was registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411 of the IPC. The accused was arrested and was released on bail by the Court of Sessions. However, subsequently, when the charge-sheet came to be filed, one more offence viz.- offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC, was added therein. The Magistrate