Civil Appeal No 2844 of 1979
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 17 8 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No 1273 of 1976
Pramod Swarup for the Appellant
N K Agarwal for the Respondent Amicus Curiae
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK J
This appeal by special leave and the four associated special leave petitions question the dismissal by the High Court of Allahabad of five revision petitions filed under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that they are not maintainable
Although the five cases before us must be considered in the context of their individual facts it is desirable to appreciate the relevant jurisdictional structure of revisional power enjoyed by the High Court from time to time
In 1970 the provisions of section 115 Code of Civil Procedure read  115
Revision  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 court subordinate appears  a to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or b to have exercised a jurisdiction so vested or 35 c to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally with material irregularity the High Court may make such order in the case as it deems fit
 A schematic analysis of the judicial hierarchy within a State indicates that the High Court as the apex court in the hierarchy has been entrusted not only with the supreme appellate power exercised within the State but also by virtue of section 115 the power to remove in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice any jurisdictional error committed by a subordinate court in those cases where the error cannot be corrected by resort to its appellate jurisdiction
The two salient features of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 are on the one hand the closely limited grounds on which the court is permitted to interfere and on the other the wide expanse of discretion available to the court when it decides to interfere in making an appropriate order
The intent is that so serious an error as one of jurisdiction if committed by a subordinate court should not remain uncorrected and should be removed and the record healed of the infirmity by an order shaped to re instate the proceeding within the proper jurisdictional confines of the subordinate court
It is a power of superintendence and fittingly it has been conferred in terms enabling the High Court to exercise it not only when moved by an aggrieved person but also suo motu
While considering the nature and scope of the revisional jurisdiction it is necessary however to advert to prime circumstance that in civil cases the jurisdiction has been entrusted to the highest court of the State demonstrating that broadly the order under section 115 is to be regarded in the absence of anything else as a final order within the State judiciary
From its inception there was increasing resort to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115
Over the years the volume of litigation reached an insupportable point in the pending docket of the Court
To alleviate the burden a pattern of decentralisation of revisional power was adopted and section 115 was amended by successive State amendments each attempting to close the gap left by its predecessor
In its meandering course from stage to stage this is how section 115 read  1
From 7th April 1970  By virtue of section 3 UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1970 section 115 was amended and the result was that  i The High Court had exclusive jurisdiction under section 115 in a case arising out of an original suit of the value of Rs 20000 and above and 36 ii The High Court and the District Court had jurisdiction under section 115 concurrently in other cases
From 20th September 1972 section 6 UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1972 amended section 115 further with effect from 20th September 1972
Later section 115 was amended by section 2 UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1973 in its application to Uttar Pradesh retrospectively with effect from 20th September 1972
In consequence i The High Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction under section 115 in cases arising out of original suits of the value of Rs 20000 and above including such suits instituted before 20th September 1972 ii The District Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction under section 115 in any other case including a case arising out of an original suit instituted before 20th September 1972
Provided that in respect of cases decided before 20th September 1972 and also all cases arising out of original suits of any valuation decided by the District Court the High Court alone was competent to exercise revisional power under section 115
section 2e UP President s Acts Re enactment with Modifications Act 1974 repealed the UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1973 and re enacted it with certain modifications which however for the purposes of the present case are immaterial
From 1st February 1977 section 43 Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 1976 was enacted by Parliament and amended section 115 with effect from 1st February 1977 making substantial changes therein
Section 971 of the Amendment Act provided that any amendment made or provision inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure by a State Legislature before the 1st February 1978 would stand repealed except insofar as such amendment or provision was consistent with the Code as amended by the said Amendment Act
As the Code now amended provided for revisional jurisdiction in the High Court alone the scheme embodied in section 115 by the successive UP Amendment Acts was plainly inconsistent with the Code as now amended and therefore stood repealed the position reverting to what it was under the original section 115 before its amendment by the UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1970
But section 972 provided that section 115 as now amended by the Amendment Act 1976 would not apply to nor affect any proceeding for revision which had been admitted after 37 preliminary hearing before 1st February 1977 and every such proceeding for revision would be disposed of as if section 43 had not come into force
The proviso was without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of section 6 
In the result  i The High Court had exclusive jurisdiction under section 115 in a revision petition filed on and after that date irrespective of the valuation of the suit out of which the case arose  ii A revision petition under section 115 which had been admitted after preliminary hearing before 1st February 1977 would continue to be governed by section 115 as it stood before that date
From 1st August 1978 Finally section 3 Code of Civil Procedure Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act 1978 which was deemed to have come into force on 1st August 1978 amended section 115 again and restored the bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction between the High Court and the District Court
Accordingly now i The High Court alone had jurisdiction under section 115 in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of Rs 20000 and above including such suits or other proceedings instituted before 1st August 1978 ii The District Court alone has jurisdiction under section 115 in any other case including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before 1st August 1978 iii The High Court has jurisdiction under section 115 in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation decided by the District Court
iv A revision proceeding pending immediately before 1st August 1978 of the nature in which a District Court would exercise revisional power under section 115 as amended by the Amendment Act 1978 if pending  a in the District Court would be decided by that court as if the Amendment Act of 1978 were in force at all material times  b in the High Court would be decided by the High Court as if the Amendment Act of 1978 had not come into force
The submissions made by learned counsel before us cover a wide field but in the main two questions arise  1 Whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure in respect of an order of the District Court under section 115 disposing of a revision petition  38 2 Whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction under section 115 against an order of the District Court under section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act disposing of a revision petition  As regards the first question it will be noticed that a revisional power was formerly entrusted exclusively to the highest court in the state the High Court
The State amendments now divided it between the High Court and the District Court
The amendment effect by the UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1970 conferred exclusive jurisdiction under section 115 in the High Court in cases arising out of original suits of the value of Rs 20000 and above and in other cases the revisional jurisdiction was concurrently shared between the High Court and the District Court
It was apparently supposed that the average litigant would prefer the less expensive and more convenient forum of the District Court
The measure it seems did not bring the relief expected and the State Legislature found it necessary by enacting the UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1972 to make a clear cut division of jurisdiction between the High Court and the District Court resulting in exclusive revisional jurisdiction to the High Court in cases arising out of original suits of the value of Rs 20000 and above and exclusive jurisdiction under section 115 to the District Court in other cases
There was a sharp bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction and the High Court and District Court now enjoyed mutually exclusive revisional powers
A controversy arose whether a revisional order under section 115 made by the District Court was final or was itself amendable to the revisional power of the High Court under the same section
The point was considered by a full Bench of the High Court in Har Parasad Singh and others vs Ram Swarup and others and it was held that no such revision petition was maintainable before the High Court
Further State amendments were made to section 115 without materially disturbing the division of power
But a proviso added to section 115 by the UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1973 followed by the UP President s Acts Re enactment with Modifications Act 1974 stated  Provided that in respect of cases decided before the 20th day of September 1972 and also all cases arising out of original suits of any valuation decided by the District Court the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section
 The proviso reopened the controversy whether a revision petition lay to the High Court against a revisional order passed by the Dis 39 trict Court and on a difference of opinion between two learned judges a third learned judge of the Allahabad High Court now held in Phool Wati and others vs Gur Sahai that a revision petition would lie
The Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 1976 however superseded the scheme of bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction with effect from 1st February 1977 and with certain modification the position reverted to what it was under the original section 115
In other words the entire sphere of revisional jurisdiction was restored to the High Court no such power being now vested in the District Court
An exception was made where a revision petition under section 115 had been admitted after preliminary hearing before Ist February 1977 it would continue to be governed by section 115 as it stood before that date
The situation lasted only briefly for on 1st August 1978 the Code of Civil Procedure Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act 1978 substantially restored the status quo ante
The controversy whether it is open to the High Court to exercise revisional power in respect of a revisional order under section 115 of the District Court presents little difficulty
The basis for determining that question flows from the principle incorporated in the bifurcation of the revisional jurisdiction
And legislative history comes to our aid
The consistent object behind the successive amendments was to divide the work load of revision petitions between the High Court and the District Court and decentralise that jurisdiction
That purpose was sought to be achieved by classifying all cases into two mutually exclusive categories depending on the valuation of the suit out of which they arose
In determining whether the Legislature intended a further revision petition to the High Court regard must be had to the principle that the construction given to a statute should be such as would advance the object of the legislation and suppress the mischief sought to be cured by it
It seems to us that to recognise a revisional power in the High Court over a revisional order passed by the District Judge would plainly defeat the object of the legislative scheme
The intent behind the bifurcation of jurisdiction to reduce the number of revision petitions filed in the High Court would be frustrated
The scheme would in large measure lose its meaning
If a revision petition is permitted to the High Court against the revisional order of the District Court arising out of a suit of a value less than Rs 20000  a fundamental contradiction would be allowed to invade and destroy the division of revisional power between the High Court and the District Court for 40 the High Court would then enjoy jurisdictional power in respect of an order arising out of a suit of a valuation below Rs 20000 
That was never intended at all
In Phoolwati supra considerable importance was attached to the proviso introduced in section 115 by the UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1973
The proviso declared that in respect of all cases arising out of original suits of any valuation decided by the District Court the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section
What it said was that no matter what the valuation of the original suit be it Rs 20000 and above or below Rs 20000  if a case arising out of such suit was decided by the District Court the case would be amenable to the revisional power of the High Court
We are already familiar with the category of cases where the High Court wields revisional jurisdiction over cases arising out of original suits of a value of Rs 20000 or more
That is the category already covered by the substantive provision in section 115
The other category covered by the proviso would include those instances for example where an original suit although of a value making it triable by a court subordinate is transferred to the District Court for trial
Orders passed by the District Court in such a suit could constitute a case decided by it and amenable to the revisional power of the High Court
What must be noted is that the test incorporated in the proviso is the fact that the case has been decided by the District Court
The valuation of the suit is irrelevant
But the proviso cannot be construed to include the case of a revisional order passed by the District Court for that would be in direct conflict with the fundamental structure itself of section 115 evidencing that a mutually exclusive jurisdiction has been assigned to the High Court and the District Court within its terms
A proviso cannot be permitted by construction to defeat the basic intent expressed in the substantive provision
Har Prasad Singh supra and Phoolwati supra were considered by a Full Bench of the High Court in Ms Jupiter Fund Pvt Ltd vs Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others and in our judgment the High Court rightly laid down there that the phrase case arising out of an original suit occurring in section 115 does not cover orders passed in revision
We are of opinion on the first question that the High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure over a revisional order made by the District Court under that section
41 We shall now advert to the second question whether a revisional order of the District Court under section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure
Section 25 originally provided 25
The High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit
 Section 25 was amended in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh from time to time
The first amendment substituted the District Judge for the High Court so that the District Judge became the repository of revisional power instead of the High Court
A further amendment made in 1972 added a proviso which declared that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes the power of revision under section 25 would vest in the High Court
The question before us arises in those cases only where the District Judge has exercised revisional power under section 25
Is an order so made open to revision by the High Court under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure  An examination of the several provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act indicates that it is a self sufficient code so far as the present enquiry is concerned
For the purpose of correcting decrees or orders made by a Court of Small Causes the Act provides for an appeal and a revision in cases falling under section 24 and section 25 respectively
Cases in which the District Judge and the High Court respectively exercise revisional power revisional powers are specifically mentioned
A complete set of superior remedies has been incorporated in the Act
Moreover section 27 of the Act provides 27
Finality of decrees and orders
Save as provided by this Act a decree or order made under the foregoing provisions of this Act by a Court of Small Causes shall be final
 The Legislature clearly intended that a decree or order made by a Court of Small Causes should be final subject only to correction by the remedies provided under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
It is a point for consideration that had section 25 in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh continued in its original form the High Court would have exercised the revisional power under section 25 and no question could have arisen of invoking the revisional power of the High Court under section 115 of the Code
All the indications point to the conclusion that a case falling within the 42 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was never intended to be subject to the remedies provided by the Code of Civil Procedure
By way of abundant caution section 7 of the Code made express provision barring the application of sections 96 to 112 and 115 of the Code to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
Section 7 of the Code merely embodies the general principle against resort to remedies outside the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
Although the court of the District Judge is not a court constituted under the Act the general principle continues to take effect
No change in the principle was brought about merely because revisional power under section 25 before the proviso was added was now entrusted to the District Judge
It must be remembered that the legislative intention behind the amendment was to relieve the High Court of the burden of exercising revisional jurisdiction in respect of cases decided under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
We are of firm opinion that the central principle continues to hold notwithstanding the amendment effected in section 25 that the hierarchy of remedies enacted in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act represents a complete and final order of remedies and it is not possible to proceed outside the Act to avail of a superior remedy provided by another statute
These considerations were apparently not present before the High Court of Allahabad when it held in Bimla Rani Kohli vs Ms Bandu Motor Finance P Ltd that a revisional order of the District Judge under section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act could be revised by the High Court under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure
In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is not correct
Accordingly we hold that an order passed under section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by a District Court is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure
In Civil Appeal No 2844 of 1979 SLP No 9104 of 1979 SLP No 9142 of 1979 and SLP No 9752 of 1979 the High Court has rejected revision petitions filed under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure against the revisional orders of the District Court under section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
On the opinion reached by us that a revision petition under section 115 is not maintainable against a revisional order under section 25 the appeal and the associated special leave petitions must be dismissed
43 SLP No 9031 of 1979 arises out of an application for an ad interim injunction made in a pending suit
Since then the suit has been dismissed and an appeal against the decree is pending
As the suit itself has been disposed of all proceedings for grant of interim relief must be regarded as having lapsed
The Special Leave Petition has become infructuous and must be dismissed accordingly
It has been urged by the appellant in Vishesh Kumar vs Shanti Prasad Civil Appeal No 2844 of 1979 that in case this Court is of the opinion that a revision petition under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable the case should be remitted to the High Court for consideration as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
We are unable to accept that prayer
A revision petition under section 115 is a separate and distinct proceeding from a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and one cannot be identified with the other
In the result the appeal and the special leave petitions are dismissed
There will be no order as to cost
PBR Appeal and Petitions dismissed


Summary:
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers on the High Court of a State power to remove any jurisdictional error committed by a subordinate court in cases where the error cannot be corrected by resort to its appellate jurisdiction
From its inception there was increasing resort to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115
To alleviate the burden of arrears and reduce the volume of litigation which had reached an insupportable point section 115 was amended by successive state amendments each amendment attempting to close the gap left by its predecessor
The amendments conferred revisional jurisdiction both on the High Court and the District Court each enjoying mutually exclusive revisional powers
The consistent object behind the successive amendments was to divide the work load of revision petitions between the High Court and the District Court and decentralise the jurisdiction
A proviso was added to section 115 by the UP Civil Laws Amendment Act 1973 declaring that in respect of cases arising out of original suits of any valuation decided by the District Court the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section
 The Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 1976 superseded the scheme of bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction with effect from 1st February 1977
With certain modifications the position reverted to what it was under the original section 115
An exception was made where a revision petition under section 115 had been admitted after preliminary hearing before 1st February 1977 it would continue to be governed by section 115 as it stood before that date
But the Code of Civil Procedure UP Amendment Act 1978 substantially restored the status quo ante
Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was amended from time to time in its application to the State of UP
The first amendment substituted the District Judge for the High Court
A further amendment made in 1972 added a proviso which declared that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes Court the power of revision under section 25 would vest in the High Court
33 The two questions that fell for consideration were  i whether the High Court possesses the revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of an order of the District Court under s115 disposing of a revision petition and ii whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction under section 115 against an order of District Court under section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act disposing of a revision petition  HELD  The High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure over the revisional order made by the District Court under that section
40 H a To recognise a revisional power in the High Court over the revisional order passed by the District Court would plainly defeat the object of the legislative scheme
The intent behind the bifurcation of jurisdiction to reduce the number of revision petitions filed in the High Court would be frustrated
The scheme would lose its meaning
If a revision petition is permitted to the High Court against the revisional order of the District Court arising out of a suit of a value less than Rs 20000 a fundamental contradiction would be allowed to invade and destroy the division of revisional power between the High Court and the District Court for the High Court would then enjoy jurisdictional power in respect of an order arising out of a suit of a valuation of below Rs 20000 39 G H b What the proviso introduced in section 115 by the Civil Laws Amendment Act 1973 stated was that no matter what the valuation of the original suit if a case arising out of such suit was decided by the District Court the case would be amenable to the revisional power of the High Court
What is covered by the substantive provision are cases arising out of original suits of a value of Rs 20000 or more
The other category covered by the proviso would include those instances where an original suit although of a value making it triable by a court subordinate is transferred to the District Court for trial
Orders passed by the District Court in such a suit could constitute a case decided by it and amenable to the revisional power of the High Court
The test incorporated in the proviso is the fact that the case has been decided by the District Court
The valuation of the suit is irrelevant
The proviso cannot be construed to include the case of a revisional order passed by the District Court for that would be in direct conflict with the fundamental structure itself of section 115
A proviso cannot be permitted by construction to defeat the basic intent expressed in the substantive provision
40 C F Ms Jupiter Fund Pvt Ltd vs Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others approved
a An order passed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by a District Court is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the CPC 42 F b An examination of the several provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act indicates that it is a self sufficient code so far as the present enquiry is concerned
The Legislature clearly intended that a decree or order made by a Court of Small Causes should be final subject only to correction by the remedies provided under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
All the indications contained in the Act point to the conclusion that a case falling 34 within the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was never intended to be subject to the remedies provided by the Code of Civil Procedure
By way of abundant caution section 7 of the Code made express provision barring the application of sections 96 to 112 and 115 of the Code to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
Section 7 of the Code merely embodies the general principle against resort to remedies outside the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
Although the court of the District Judge is not a court constituted under the Act the general principle continues to take effects No change in the principle was brought about merely because revisional power under section 25 before the proviso was added was now entrusted to the District Judge
The legislative intention behind the amendment was to relieve the High Court of the burden of exercising revisional jurisdiction in respect of cases decided under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
Therefore the central principle continues to hold notwithstanding the amendment effected in section 25 that the hierarchy of remedies enacted in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act represents a complete and final order of remedies and it is not possible to proceed outside the Act to avail of a superior remedy provided by another statute
4 E 42 A D Bimla Rani Kohli vs Ms Bandu Motor Finance Pvt
Ltd AIR 1972 All 342 over ruled