# The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., Saharanpur v. Union of India & Anr - **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1344 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-04-13 - **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-straw-board-manufacturing-company-ltd-saharanpur-v-union-of-india-anr-48500 - **Pages:** 10 ## Headnote A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXVII Rule 1 - Only the officers appointed by Government under Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 can sign and verify the papers in legal proceeding on behalf of Government and this power cannot be delegated to any other officers, not appointed by the Government. Any authorization or delegation made to some other officer not appointed by Government then it would be contrary to Order XXVII Rule 1 CPC, 1908 and nullity in the eye of law. Petition allowed. Petition allowed. (E-12) List of Cases cited:- 5 All. The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., Saharanpur Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1345 ## Text 1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES these 21 persons have completed their sentence in 2007, 2008 and 2009, but their nationality has not been confirmed by the Pakistan High Commission though it appears that the consular access with regard to them was provided a few months before the completion of their sentence. It is indeed unfortunate that these 37 Pakistani prisoners who have served out their sentence and are not required under the Indian laws have been kept in jail because their nationality has not been confirmed. Whatever may be the reason for delay in confirmation of their nationality, we have not even slightest doubt that their continued imprisonment is uncalled for. In no way, can these 37 Pakistani prisoners be treated as prisoners once they have served out their sentence. It is true that unless their nationality is confirmed, they cannot be repatriated and have to be kept in India but until then, they cannot be confined to prison and deprived of basic human rights and human dignity." 24. Hence in the present matter admittedly the convict/respondent has served out the sentence awarded to him in the matter under appeal as well as under another case which was registered against him on the date when he completed the sentence awarded in the present case. Now he cannot be kept in jail and his confinement in jail is uncalled for. 24. Hence in light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that since convict/respondent has already served out the sentence awarded to him and he is a foreign national without any passport or visa, therefore he must be deported to his own country. The Union of India/respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 are directed to deport him to his own country in accordance with law, unless required in any other case. 25. The above appeal is dismissed and writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 26. The learned A.G.A., as well as Senior Registrar of this Court are directed to send the copy of this judgment to the concerned authorities/departments at the earliest. ---------- (2022)05ILR A1344 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. Matters U/A 227 No. 269 of 2022 (Civil) The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., Saharanpur ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXVII Rule 1 - Only the officers appointed by Government under Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 can sign and verify the papers in legal proceeding on behalf of Government and this power cannot be delegated to any other officers, not appointed by the Government. Any authorization or delegation made to some other officer not appointed by Government then it would be contrary to Order XXVII Rule 1 CPC, 1908 and nullity in the eye of law. Petition allowed. Petition allowed. (E-12) List of Cases cited:- 5 All. The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., Saharanpur Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1345 1. M/S C. Lyall and Co. Vs U.O.I. & ors., ILR 1973 Delhi 905 2. St. of J.& K. & anr. Vs Gh. Nabi Bhat & ors., AIR 2003 NOC 555 (J.&K.). (Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) IIIrd, Court No. 30, Saharanpur whereby application Paper no. 44-C-2 filed by petitioner in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2020 arising out of Original Suit No. 141 of 1982 has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Company duly registered under the provision of Companies Act, 1956. The said Company earlier filed Original Suit No. 141 of 1982 against the Union of India/Railways for permanent prohibitory injunction in which written statement has also been filed. The Trial Court decreed the aforesaid suit vide exparte judgment and decree dated 21.04.1987. He further submitted that after gap of 33 years, recall application was filed by respondents on 27.10.2020 in which petitioner has also filed objection. One separate application 44-C-2 has also been filed raising objection under Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 and has taken specific plea that in light of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908, only persons appointed by Central Government can file application alongwith Vakalatnama and affidavit. The said application was rejected vide impugned order dated 12.11.2021. He further submitted that Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 clearly states that in any suit by or against the Government, the plaint or written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may, by general or special Order, appoint in this behalf. It is also stated that it shall be verified by any person, whom the Government may so appoint and who is acquainted with the facts of the case. He next submitted that persons appointed can sign the plaint and verify the same. He next submitted that respondents have also filed Notification dated 04.06.1992 issued by Railway Board, which was earlier filed in objection Paper No. 42-C-2, by which at serial No. 30 of the Schedule, has appointed the Senior Divisional Engineer to represent the Railway Administration to sign the papers and also verify the same on its behalf. In the present case, only Vakalatnama was signed by Senior Divisional Engineer, whereas application was filed under the signature of Assistant Divisional Engineer and also verified by Senior Section Engineer, therefore, such application cannot be entertained. He next submitted that without considering the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908, the application has been rejected. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/S C. Lyall and Company Vs. Union of India and others, ILR 1973 Delhi 905 which deals with similar issue, where it was clarified that person/persons appointed can only represent the Government in all proceedings of the case. He also placed reliance upon a judgment of J. & K. High Court in the case of State of J.& K. and another Vs. Gh. Nabi Bhat and others, AIR 2003 NOC 555 (J.&K.). In this matter, again issue was as to whether Under 1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Secretary can represent the Government or not and relying upon the notification dated 04.06.1992, the Court held that he can also file the case as Under Secretary is also notified in notification dated 04.06.1992. 5. Lastly, he submitted that in the present case, vide notification dated 04.06.1992 appointment is given to Senior Divisional Engineer, no other officers can file the application or verify the papers. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the Senior Divisional Engineer is appointed by Railway Board, which is Government in light of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908, he can delegate the power to some other officers also to verify the facts of the case. In the present case, notification was issued for all over India, therefore, for practical purpose, Senior Divisional Engineer is authorized to delegate the power to all the officers to file application alongwith signature and verify the same. Accordingly, Senior Divisional Engineer vide letter dated 21.02.2018 has authorized the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Saharanpur to sign the application and also verify the same. He next submitted that the officer posted at Saharanpur is well acquainted with the facts of the case, who has been authorized to sign the application and verify the same. He lastly submitted that even in case, he is not authorized to sign and verify the application, Railway Board may be given liberty to file fresh application for recall of the order in accordance with law. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and perused the record as well as provisions of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 For ready reference, Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 is quoted below:- "1. Suits by or against Government.- In any suit by or against the Government the plaint or written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may, by general or special Order, appoint in this behalf, and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint and who is acquainted with the facts of the case. STATE AMENDMENT Uttar Pradesh.-In its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in the marginal heading, after the words 'official capacity', insert the words 'or Statutory Authorities, etc.' [Vide U.P. Act 57 of 1976 S. 11 (1-11977)]." 8. From perusal of the Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908, it is very much clear that only the person, who is appointed by the Government can sign the plaint alongwith signature and also verify the same. In the present case, there is no dispute that Railway Board is an appropriate authority to appoint the person under Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 and further as per Notification dated 04.06.1992 Railway Board has appointed the persons for compliance of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 alongwith Schedule having particular of officers. Notification dated 04.06.1992 alongwith schedule is quoted below:- R.B.E. No. 91/92 No. E(G)82LL2-2(A), dated 4.6.1992 ORDER S.O.........In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 1 of Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil 5 All. The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., Saharanpur Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1347 Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Railways (Railways Board) number GSR 198, dated the 21st February, 1983, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints. (I) the officers mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto as persons by whom plaints and written statements in suits in any court of civil jurisdiction by or against the Central Government respect of the Railway Administration shall be signed; (II) those of the officers referred to in clause (I) who are acquainted with the facts of the case, as persons by whom such plaints and written statements shall be verified. S C H E D U L E 1. Ministry of Railways (Railways Board): 1. Secretary 2. Joint Secretary 3. Deputy Secretary 4. Under Secretary 5. Executive Director 6. Director 7. Joint Director 8. Deputy Director II. In all establishments of the Railways including Metro Railway, Chittranjan Locomotive Works, Integral Coach Factory, Wheel and Axle Plant, Diesel Component Works, Metropolitan Transport Project, Railway Electrification, Central Organisation for Modernisation of Workshops, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala and Central Organisation for the operations information system of Indian Railways, except the Research Design and Standards Organisation, Training Institute and the Railway Liaison Office: 1. General Manager. 2. Chief Administrative Officer 3. Additional General Manager 4. Deputy General Manager 5. Chief Vigilance Officer 6. Deputy Vigilance Officer 7. Vigilance Officer 8. Enquiry Officer 9. Chief Planning Officer 10. Chief Project Officer 11. Deputy Chief Planning Officer 12. Chief Public Relation Officer 13. Senior Public Relations Officer 14. Divisional Railway Manager 15. Additional Divisional Railway Manager 16. Chief Personnel Officer 17. Deputy Chief Personnel Officer 18. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer 19. Divisional Personnel Officer 20. Chief Security Commissioner 21. Additional Chief Security Commissioner 22. Divisional Security Commissioner/Commanding Officer 23. Chief Engineer 24. Chief Bridge Engineer 25. Chief Project Engineer 26. Chief Track Engineer 27. Chief General Engineer 28. Chief Planning and Design Engineer 29. Deputy Chief Engineer 30. Senior Divisional Engineer 31. Senior Executive Engineer 32. Divisional Executive Engineer 33. Chief Commercial Superintendent 34. Chief Marketing Superintendent 1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 35. Chief Claims Officer 36. Chief Passenger Traffic Superintendent 37. Chief Traffic Safety Superintendent 38. Chief Traffic Planning Superintendent 39. Area Superintendent 40. Deputy Chief Operating Superintendent 41. Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent 42. Deputy Chief Claims Officer 43. Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent 44. Senior Divisional Operating/Commercial Superintendent 45. Tank Wagon Superintendent 46. Chief Mechanical Engineer 47. Chief Workshop Engineer 48. Chief Freight Traffic Superintendent 49. Chief Rolling Stock Engineer 50. Chief Motive Power Engineer (R/L)/Diesel) 51. Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer. 52. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer 53. Works Manager/Divisional Mechanical Engineer/Senior Mechanical Engineer 54. Chief Signal and Telecommunication Engineer 55. Chief Communication Engineer 56. Deputy Chief Signal and Telecommunication Engineer 57. Divisional Signal and Telecommunication Engineer/Senior Signal and Telecommunication Engineer 58. Chief Electrical Engineer 59. Chief Electrical Service Engineer 60. Chief Electrical Distribution Engineer 61. Chief Electrical Construction Engineer 62. Chief Electrical Loco Engineer 63. Chief Electrical Project Engineer 64. Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer 65. Divisional Electrical Engineer/Senior Electrical Engineer 66. Controller of Stores 67. Deputy Controller of Stores 68. Chief Material Manager 69. Divisional Controller of Stores/Senior Stores Officers 70. Superintendent Printing and Stationary 71. Chief Medical Officer 72. Chief Hospital Superintendent /Chief Surgeon/Chief Physician 73. Medical Superintendent 74. Senior Divisional Medical Officer 75. Divisional Medical Officer 76. Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer 77. Deputy Chief Accounts Officer 78. Senior Accounts Officer 79. Deputy Manager (MIS), Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala 80. Administrative Officer-cumPublic Relations Officer, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala 81. Officer on Special duty, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala 82. Chief Project Administrator, Operations Information System of Indian Railways 83. Chief Operation Manager, Operations Information System of Indian Railways 5 All. The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., Saharanpur Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1349 84. Chief Telecommunication Manager, Operations Information System of Indian Railways 85. System Manager, Operations Information System of Indian Railways 86. Officer on Special Duty, Telecom, Operations Information System of Indian Railways 87. Chief Telecommunication Manager, Operations Information System of Indian Railways. 88. Senior Personnel Officer 89. Divisional Commercial Manager 90. Senior Commercial Manager 9. Undoubtedly, the said Schedule is having the appointment of Senior Divisional Engineer at Serial No. 30, but the said Schedule is not having appointment of Assistant Divisional Engineer or Senior Section Engineer. From perusal of the Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 as well as Notification dated 04.06.1992, it is apparent that there is no provision for delegation of power to the officer other than that mentioned in Schedule. 10. In the case of M/S C. Lyall and Company (supra), High Court of Delhi, in similar situation, has taken the view that person/persons appointed, only can represent the Government in all proceedings of the case. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted below:- "11. The first contention urged on behalf of the Union of India is that the notice of the filing of the award received in the office of the Executive Engineer on 26th April, 1971, could not constitute notice of the filing of the award by the Union of India as neither the person who received the notice nor the Executive Engineer was competent to accept notice on behalf oF the Union of India or otherwise bind the Union of India in relation to any proceedings. Mr. Daphtry who appears for the petitioner, however, relies on a notification being S. R. O. 351 dated January 25, 1958, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 1 of Order XXVII of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the Central Government appointed certain officers specified in the schedule to the notification who may sign plaints and written statements in suit in any Court of Civil jurisdiction by or against the Central Government and points out that the schedule to the notification specifically included under the head C. W. P. D., the Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers which would include the Executive Engineer in question. He further contends that by virtue of the power conferred on the Executive Engineer by this notification to sign the pleadings in any suit by or against the Central Government the said Executive Engineer would be deemed to have been fully authorised to accept notice in respect of the proceedings in relation to which he could sign and verify the pleadings. He further contends that the Executive Engineer in question in whose office the notice had been received was the officer who was concerned with the execution of the contract out of which disputes arose and had been pursuing the proceedings before the Arbitrator on behalf of the Union of India. (12) This contention of the Union of India must prevail. Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for suits by or against the Government or public officers in their official capacity. Rule 2 A of this order provides that persons being ex-officio or otherwise authorised to act for the 1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Government in respect of any judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be the recognised agents by whom appearances, acts and applications under this Code may be made or done on behalf of the Government. Rule 3 provides that in suits by or against the Government instead of inserting in the plaint the name and description and place of residence; of the plaintiff or defendant, it shall be sufficient to insert the appropriate name as provided in section 79 of the Code. Section 79 provides that in suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government shall be the Union of India. Rule 4 of the Order XXVII provides that the Government pleader in any Court shall be the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving processes against the Government issued by such Court. Rule 2(B) of the said order defines the term "Government pleader" in relation to any suit by or against the Central Government as the pleader as Government may appoint whether generally or specially for the purposes of the said order. Section 80 of the Code provides that no suit shall be instituted against the Government or against the public servant in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office of, in the case of a suit against the Central Government, the Secretary to that Government. (13) It, therefore, follows that a notice of any proceeding to the Central Government would be valid only if it was either sent to the Sec- retary to the Government or to any other officer who may be authorised to act for the Government in respect of judicial proceedings or to the pleader as defined in Rule 8(B) of the said Order. It is difficult to hold that any public servant who dealt with any proceedings which may have led to the institution of the suit against the Union of India would be competent to accept notice on behalf of the Union of India. It is equally difficult to hold that Union of India would be bound by notice received by various officers at different levels. In any event, in the absence of any provision of law or any rule of business or any statutory rule to the contrary it is not possible to hold that the Executive Engineer was empowered to accept notice on behalf of the Union of India and that the receipt of notice in his office constituted sufficient notice to the Union of India of the filing of the award in the present case." 11. Similar matter again came up for consideration before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the matter of State of J.& K. and another (supra), where the issue was as to whether under Secretary of the Government can file application or not. The Court after going through notification came to conclusion that under Secretary may also file application as it is also notified. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted below:- "2. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record, Ld, Counsel for the respondents Mr. M.A. Qayoom has strenuously argued that appeal can only be filed by the person who is aggrieved of the judgment and only such person can either himself sign the memo of appeal/and the application or he can authorise any other competent person to do so on his behalf. According to him, in the writ petition, the judgment which is sought to be appealed against, state through Chief Secretary and Commissioner Secretary 5 All. The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., Saharanpur Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1351 General Department were respondents and therefore they alone can be said to be aggrieved persons. So according to him, the application as well as the power of attorney filed with the application appointing the counsel for prosecution of the application could only be signed by them. According to him in the present case, the application and the power of attorney appointing the counsel for prosecution of application has been signed by Under Secretary to Government General Department who is not legally competent to do so. In support he relies upon case reported in 1998 SLJ Page 46 and 1998 SLJ page 50. 3. Mr. Hussain Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that for considering the sufficiency of the cause shown for seeking condonation of delay, liberal approach should be adopted and a meritorious case should not be declined to be heard simply because there is some delay as reported in 2000 SLJ page 335. He further contended that Under Secretary is a competent person under law duly authorised on behalf of the state to make an appeal and sign the same on behalf of the State as well as to make and sign the application for condonation of delay. According to Ld, Counsel the State has empowered the Under Secretary in this behalf by Issuance of SRO 413 dated 18th of August 1973, he relies in support on the case reported in 1974 KLJ page 745. 4. We have considered the respective contentions of the parties raised at the bar and are of the opinion that application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the competent person for the following reasons:- State being not a real person, always acts through its officers provision in this regard has been made in order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is beneficial to refer to Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXVII in this behalf which are reproduced as under:- 1. Suits by or against Govt. In (the Government) the plaint or written statement shall be signed by such person as the Govt. may, by general or special order, appoint in this behalf and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint and who is acquainted with the facts of the case. 2. Persons authorised to act for Government -- Persons being ex officio or otherwise to act for the Government in respect of any judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be the recognized agents by whom appearances, acts and applications under this code may be made or done on behalf of the Government." 5. From the bare perused of these rules it is manifestly clear that Government can authorise any person to act on its behalf. Now it is to be seen whether Under Secretary of Administrative department was authorized to act on behalf of the Government. The Government of J & K has issued SRO 413 dated 18th of August 1973 which is as follows. "Notification SRO 413 dt. 18.8.73; "SRO-413- For purposes of the provisions of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXVII and Section 2(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 1977, and in modification of paras 38 and 44 of the Revised Law Department Manual, 1935, the Government is pleased to make the following order:- 1. In suits by or against the Government, the plaint or written statement shall be signed by the Secretary/ Head of the concerned Department and shall be verified by either of them or by any other gazetted officer of the Department who is acquainted with the facts of the cases. 2. The Secretary Head of the concerned Department and the Secretary 1352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES to Government Law Department are exofficio authorised to act for the government in respect of all judicial proceedings. Explanation:- for purposes of paras 1 and 2 above secretary shall include the Additional Secretary, the Special Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary. 3. The Secretary to Govt., Law Department, the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary in that Department shall be Government pleaders for the purposes of performing all the function of the Government Pleader under the Code of Civil Procedure within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the said code. 6. As the present case pertains to General Department, as such the Under Secretary to General Department in view of the explanation appended to SRO 413 can be deemed to have been authorized to act on behalf of the Government. So there is no lack of competence on the part of Under Secretary in signing the application and the appeal on behalf of the State and for appointing the counsel for prosecution of the same. Authorities relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the non applicants are distinguishable and don't deal with the question like in hand." 12. From perusal of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908, it is apparently clear that only the person appointed by Government by general or special order, shall sign and verify the plaint or written statement. There is no provision of delegation power to any other officer. Therefore, this cannot be interpreted in any other way except as provided in the language of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908. Only those officer/officers, who are appointed by Government, shall sign and verify the papers, affidavits and Vakalatnama in legal proceeding. He can not authorize any other officer on his behalf as it would be De hors the provision of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908. 13. This Court is having respectful agreement with the view taken by High Court of Delhi as well as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the matters of M/S C. Lyall and Company and State of J.& K. and another (supra) and holds that only the officers appointed by Government under Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 can sign and verify the papers in legal proceeding on behalf of Government and this power cannot be delegated to any other officers, not appointed by the Government. 14. In the present case, Railway Board exercising its power conferred under Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C, 1908 has appointed many officers to sign and verify the plaint, written statement etc. on behalf of Railway Board and certainly the said appointment is not having appointment of Assistant Divisional Engineer and Senior Section Engineer, therefore, they cannot sign or verify the application. Any authorization made to such officers would be contrary to the Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 and nullity in the eye of law. 15. There is no dispute on the point that Assistant Divisional Engineer and Senior Section Engineer are given authorization and their appointment is not found place in the notification dated 04.06.1992. Therefore, they cannot file and verify the application on behalf of Railway Board in light of the Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 as well discussion made hereinabove. Therefore, such documents cannot be accepted and no order can be passed upon that. 5 All. Aqama Builders & Developers Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Civil Judge, Senior Division , Malihabad, Lucknow & Ors. 1353 16. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order dated 12.11.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) IIIrd, Court No. 30, Saharanpur is hereby quashed. 17. No order as to costs. 18. So far as second prayer for permission to file fresh application is concerned, needless to say that it is always open for the respondents to move applications in accordance with law and for that, no permission is required. It is also obvious that if any such application is filed, same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. ---------- (2022)05ILR A1353 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. Matters U/A 227 No. 1388 of 2022 Aqama Builders & Develpers Ltd. Lucknow ...Petitioner Versus Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malihabad, Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Nirmit Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Anand Pratap Singh A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 - 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. B. The judgment can be a precedent only for that its actually held therein and not for that which can be inferred therefrom. A Judgment cannot be read as Statute and interpreted. Petition Dismissed. (E-12) List of Cases cited:- 1. Radhey Shyam & anr. Vs Chhabi Nath & ors. (2015) 5 SCC 423 2. Surya Dev Rai Vs Ram Chand Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 (overruled) 3. Naresh Shridhan Mirajkar Vs St. of Mah. AIR 1967 SC 1 4. Bhavnagar University Vs Palilana Sugar Mills (2003) 2 SCC 111, 5. Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai Vs Tuticorin Educational Society & ors. (2019) 9 SCC 538 6. A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs S. Chellappan (2000) 7 SCC 695 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.) 1. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nirmit Srivastava, and Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 alongwith Sri Anand Pratap Singh, Advocate. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India