CRA/688/1998 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 688 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================================== RAMGOPAL MOTILAL GORANA - Applicant(s) Versus GITABEN RAMCHANDRA GORANA - Opponent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR. CHIRAG PATEL for MR BS PATEL for Petitioner No(s).: 1. MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Petitioner No(s).: 1. None for Respondent No(s).: 1. NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No(s).: 1 - 1. MR PR THAKKAR for Respondent No(s).: 1 - 1. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA Date : 22/08/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.By filing instant petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short), the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgement and order dated 7.3.1998 rendered in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 143 of 1995 by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner CRA/688/1998 2/4 JUDGMENT came to be dismissed and thereby the order dated 29.6.1995 recorded below application exh.55 in Regular Civil Suit No. 538 of 1992 by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara, rejecting the application claiming ad interim injunction during pendency of the suit has been affirmed. 2.Having heard Mr. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate of the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order and more particularly the amendment made in Section 115 of the Code to the effect that interlocutory orders are no longer reviewable under Section 115 of the Code due to substitution of the proviso, which inter alia deleted erstwhile clause (1) (b) of the proviso, the revision application deserves to be rejected. 3.It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675, that Section 115 of the Code as amended by Act 46 of 1999, does not now permit a revision petition being filed against an order disposing of an appeal against the order of the trial Court whether confirming, reversing or modifying the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. The reason is that the order of the High Court passed either way would not have the effect of finally disposing of the suit or other proceedings. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such a case is taken away by the substitution of the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code by said Amendment Act 46 of 1999. The Supreme Court has further observed that the effect of the erstwhile clause (b) of the proviso being deleted and a new proviso having been inserted, is that the revisional jurisdiction, in respect of an interlocutory order passed in a trial or other proceedings, is substantially curtailed. The revisional CRA/688/1998 3/4 JUDGMENT jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless the requirement of the proviso is satisfied. 4.Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society v. M/s Swaraj Developers, 2003 AIR SCW has held that interim orders or orders which do not finally decide lis cannot be subject matter of revision. The mode of procedure altered by statutory change, i.e. Applications pending before amendment came into force not saved by Section 32(2)(i) of the amendment Act. The maintainability of revision applications admitted before amendment therefore has to be decided as per altered mode, i.e. As per amended provisions since no substantive right is involved and in such cases provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act cannot be applied. Therefore, in substance the Supreme Court has said that the amended proviso to Section 113(3) is retrospective in operation and therefore maintainability of revision applications admitted before amendment has to be decided as per altered mode, i.e. as per amended provisions. 5.Seen in the above context, since this Civil Revision Application is not maintainable, deserves to be rejected. 6.For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Application fails and accordingly it is rejected with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. 7.On the facts and in the circumstances emerging from the record of the case, since the suit is of 1992, the learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara, before whom Regular Civil Suit No. 538 of 1992 is pending for final disposal, shall give expeditious disposal of the same and decide the same on or before 31.12.2005. CRA/688/1998 4/4 JUDGMENT (A.M.Kapadia,J) Jayanti*