^ ^ r» r •iTFpfr? BT^t'WIg' TEST •^T^TPI? 1:N<Trag7 Bcno -ftrf^ -frfte^FT ^Ifrti 9 1 /^t7/-<Sing(e Bench an'^wr :- i. r^t ytTr sn-gf 26 ^srrFw tfr -f^^qrftFiTO Sr7^f&r^- 2. f^i-nq ^Tr yr^ 47 q^ arro ^f fSi?-qT<ft(i}Tp! 3,, rT^=sr ^trrr OT^ 37 ^ sro igt 1;»T?-EtT?crpfra '*• g^tr StTr OT^ 32 qrf OTO ^- ft?-qT?tiTr?i ^. ^tes yrrr airg 29 q4 arro gt 1aii?-qTfrpira ^6. l^iro-fr gr^ ar? 62 qrf S?T ^t fiTrEjT^Tnra »fr^rf^ wrw, wft-- f-iyr<ifl &(frirm -fNc;}T?gr g-cmoi s?rra 3prT^w°i :- ^\- tfr aTflww pfT ST^ 68. ^ arsw vpr <fraT?-Tn garr, grf^r. ?IT^TT?-T, -f^T?i^?', aSSfrn ^ 'feiT -l^r{T8|? HOTOI /2* Hrtfl iy gn'WT, vm-f^r^w, ~^T^^ vmo , ' ^IV hA^^ t^f S;\i >-»• ^^ iFM;" -ftrfNa P! c^t^-i 3?Sif8 qT?T it5 •sg.9»g.i908 XI-HC-22 3^ •^MM^, »Tflu'IS,(«K'UUy 3il^t^ia<»> . C.^.No.qi/o'y lllrtl vhW* ••••••••••••••••••r" gq' 200 ^^......... sn^T^ii R-fi+sn^r stiilqiolea 3<1^16«)IW(l)^(T 19/10/2005 Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Counsef None for non-applicant No.1, Shri J.D. Bajpai, Govt. Heard on admission. Applicants filed a civil suit The said suit was registered as Ci'| applicants remainsd ex parte in Class I, Bilaspur, passed ex parte| decreeing the suit in favour of application underOrder IX, Rule l^ partedecree. The proceeding was | application was allowed by the Cou| the ex parte judgment and decree | No.176-A/2001 and restored the su| Section 152 readwith Section 15f1 order dated 24/10/2003 passed ir( non-applicant N6.1 colludihg with| report regarding service of notice ^ order dated 24/10/2003. The app|i No.1. The 5th Civi) Judge, Class )| order dated 05/11/2004 passed allowed the application and set 24/10/2003 in Misc. Civil Case W for the applicants. Advocjate for the non-applicant No.2/State. tt-iat apt>licants. ?tll<llcl41-< WHvS f{^3cfS <Rtttfl< ^iSTf^rsn^T Igainst non-applicants for declaration. |?il Suit No.176-A/2001. Both the non- suit. The Court of 5th Civil Judge, judgmentand decree on 13/12/2002 Non-applicaht No.1 filed an of the C.P.C., forsetting aside the ex 1-egistered as M.J.C.No.5/2003 and the \t on 24/10/2003. The Court set aside dated 13/12/2001 passed in Civil Suit t. Applicantsfiled an application under of the C.P.C., for setting aside the M.J.C.No.5/2003 on the ground that the process server concocted false thereby succeeded in obtainingthe ication was opposed by non-applicant BUaspur, decided the application vide n Misc. Case No.1/2004 vide which aside the ex pari:e order passed on 10.5/2003. Being aggrieved with that And (if^^r) r XI-HC-22 3:s? •<ii<iici<<, ff^flwis, Riciwy 3T^?T 'radi 111MI !»>11« gq; 200 Ri<i«d 3TI^?T^T l^iTOan^T aiwti tiRci SII^T ?«iita«-)teci fe order non-applicant No.1 preferrec appeal was heard by the First vide impugned order dated 07/05^ the order passed by the Court bj 05/11/2004. Amended Section 115 (1) o; "•S15.Rmision.-(1) 7p the, any Court subonSnatp whfch no appeal suborcSnate Courtappears Misc. Appeal bearing No.1/2005. The ^dditional District Judge, Bilaspur, who (2005 allowedthe appeal and set aside felow in Misc. Civil Case No.1/2004 on 'the C.P.C. reads as below. |he High Court may call fbr recofd ofany ca^p whwh has been decided by to such High Court and in |T»es ffiiereto, and if such (b) to have failed h^ vested.w (c) to have acte^ jurisdiction ill^g, irregularity, the High Court may asitWnksfit: (Provided that ffw\ ffjis secfmn, varyo^ any order deading suft or offier procee<|fing ;y a had been m^i applying for revisior^ 4>i'iifci''fl'f *)itidT^Tsl<3 <Ri«i< ^sri^trsn^r (a) to have exetvis^d ajurisdicSon not vested in it by law, or exercise of its jurisdicSon so in the exercise of its lally or mth material mate sucft orater m ff?e case High Court shall not, under reverseany ofder made, w an issue, in fte course of a Sng, except v^iere the oider, cfe in favour of the party vmukl have f ('ft^^f^) n^ XI-HC-22 3^'^WIRPT, ®tnwiS,Rt<'uyy 3TI^?T 4!<«h *lT*(«fTni*<i<» W^ 200 Rre^ sii^n'w f^iwsn^T »iro(tfitr 3(1^1 ^WIWtiRd ofthe suitorotherf^ooeedngs". Hon'ble the Apex Court Cooperative Housing Society, others) reported in (2003) 6 SC, reads as below. "32. A plain readin^ makes itclear ffsat whelher ffiie oider /<? for revf'sion woufcf other pmceecfng. 1( revision is maintairtebte the answer is "rxb* maintainable. The^ is intenm in natu/B lis, ie revision w»< legislaffve intent is which are interim\ subject-matter of There is marked Section 97(3) of tfj< SecSon 32f2)(i) the former, there save amendment came 4 significantly absen^ amendment re/afest has a vested light /it has only the right prescribecS. if by a pmcedure is altereff, according to excepffon, unfess ff^ 'bl^lTd^-l lltldT^Ts'4 <R|<£I< ^;3rf^T3I1^T lendering judgment in Shiv Shakti Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and |C 659 has observed in para 32 which of Sectiori 115 as it stands pve stress is on the quesffon favour of the party applying (iave given finalsty to suit or 'ihe answer is "yes" then fhe But on the contrary, if >" fhen the rewsfon is no( |sft>re, if fte impugned onder [v ctoes not finally decide ie not be maintainable. The ^prystal clear. Those orders, in natwe, cannot be the i^vision under SecSon 115. d{sffncfion m fhe (anguage of |e Old Amendment Act and Amendment Act. Whilein a ctear legislaSve intent to •fhe ^itoforce. Such an intent is m Secffon 32 (2)(i). The to pmcedures. No perwn |? a course of procedtufs. He ^f proceeding in Itse manner ^fatufory change e mode of the parties are to proceed aHered mode, without jere is a cSnyent sdpufeffon". ofttse w*s applicaftons a^mltted or pending befbre ffte (-ft^^r) XI-HC-22 sn^rqir fs^rasn^r ShWK «fttl / •^.^ f /=> ^ ^ &7 ^ ..^ •& •^ 73i .<ii<iict<i, ®Tnwis,Kwuy . c<trIT. *(I*IWI th*<l«h Wf, 200 (cl<>iA sii^r?%raTBfi(T From the law laid down by| provision of Section 115 of th^ challenged, if it had been passed| been finally disposed ofthe procef maintainable, It is crystal clear thj theparty applying for revision, it ofthe proceeding. At this stage, learned wants to withdraw this petition \| under the law and prays to return annexed to petition, to which non-i Considered. Allowed. Certified copy of the im!| returned to the applicants on The revision is dismissed ai |the Apex Court as well as the amended CPC, it is apparent that the order in favour of the applicant, it woutd have iding in that case only the revision was ^t despite the order if made in favour of ^ppears that it would not finally dispose couhsel for the a^plicants submits that he 1/ith liberty to takeappropriate remedy the certified copy ofthe impugned order ^pplicantNo.2/State has no objection. 'bl<lfd4)-f Nlfd) & Es'<Jl tRitcn ^ari^irsn^r im[|iugnsd order annexed to petition be sub^titution ofphotocopy ofthe same. withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. Sd7- V.K.Shrivastava Judge ('ft^iSfe^)