PREM BAKSHI Vs. DHARAM DEV
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on January 09,2002

PREMBAKSHI Appellant
VERSUS
DHARAM DEV Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KARABI KARMAKAR VS. SHIBANI KARMAKAR [LAWS(GAU)-2003-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
SHIKHAR CHAND FALODIA VS. SUSHIL KUMAR SANGANERIA and BOTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2003-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHIKHAR CHAND FALODIA VS. SUSHIL KUMAR SANGANERIA AND BORS [LAWS(GAU)-2003-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHJAHAN VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SWAROOP TRIPATHI VS. GAUSHALA COMMITTEE SHIKOHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2011-8-164] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHAMMAD SHEIKH VS. KASHEM ALI SHEIKH [LAWS(CAL)-2012-6-45] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-249] [REFERRED TO]
AISHA VS. AMA WAGAY AND ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
M MANICKAM VS. BHUVANESWARI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-177] [REFERRED TO]
BABU SINGH VS. RAJ BAHADUR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2022-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL AHMAD VS. HAQ NAWAZ AHMAD [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKAR YADAV VS. DAKHIYA DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-2023-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU SUDAN VS. MST. RATAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL VS. DEWAN CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
HARBHEG SINGH & ANR. VS. DARSHAN RAM & ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2006-1-201] [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS LAL VS. DEV RAJ [LAWS(P&H)-2002-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRAVESH SINGH VS. RAM BINOD SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2005-2-115] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR S/O SRI SIDHNATH PRASAD VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2011-8-109] [REFERRED TO]
KIMBERLEY PEREIRA VS. MARIO PEREIRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
Timmane Gouda Narasimhappa Gouda Patil and others VS. Narasimhappa Hanamappa Doddamani and others [LAWS(KAR)-2002-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILMS CORPORATION VS. NRI FILMS PRODUCTION ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2003-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
NARHAR RANGO KULKARNI VS. MILIND SHRIPAD BENDRE [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-181] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIDA NIZAMUDDIN JALAL VS. ABIDALI JAFFERALI SYYED [LAWS(BOM)-2002-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KANT PRASAD VS. SUDHESHWAR YADAV [LAWS(PAT)-2023-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION VS. BALDEV RAJ RAM MURTI [LAWS(P&H)-2002-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
JAGESHWAR RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2006-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
HERIBERTO FRANSISCO MARIA D'CUNHA ALIAS HERIBERTO D'CUNHA VS. VICTOR LUIS MONTEIRO [LAWS(BOM)-2011-12-151] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/FAST TRACK COURT-I, GONDA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-172] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR VS. DINA NATH [LAWS(HPH)-2003-4-11] [REFERRED]
MOTIUR RAHMAN VS. ACHIA KHATOON [LAWS(GAU)-2003-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RAFIQ VS. GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN [LAWS(J&K)-2012-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SHANKER TRIPATHI VS. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-452] [REFERRED TO]
JAGRAM SHAKYA VS. GOKUL PRASAD [LAWS(MPH)-2007-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
R MOHANASUNDARAM VS. SRI ANJANEYA SRI RAGAVENDRA TEMPLE [LAWS(MAD)-2002-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV SINAI KUNDE VS. ANTONIO WILTON CAMARA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-153] [REFERRED TO]
DATTARAM V DHARWADKAR VS. GHANASHYAM G BHENDE [LAWS(BOM)-2002-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
JEYA VS. SUNDARAM IYYAR [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-186] [REFERRED TO]
K KULA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
GH NABI BHAT VS. MANZOOR AHMAD SHEIKH & ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SHANKER TRIPATHI VS. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-248] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH VS. SULAKHAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-92] [REFERRED TO]
GURMIT RAM VS. PARAMJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2006-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHI LAL VS. RAMCHAND MOTWANI [LAWS(MPH)-2004-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAMAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BINDWAL, P.S. VS. RAJENDRA SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-121] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SAVITA MORAJKAR VS. GANBA FATI FAL DESSARI [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-228] [REFERRED TO]
FR. RALIN DE SOUZA VS. GOA BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-175] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE SHARMA VS. LAL BABU SHARMA [LAWS(PAT)-2004-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
VINOY KUMAR GUPTA VS. AMBIKA MISHRA [LAWS(PAT)-2005-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAHIMAL BATHU VS. ASHIYAL BEEVI [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA DEVI VS. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHALAD SINGH VS. PADMA JAIN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
JALESHWAR PANDEY VS. VISHWANATH SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2019-7-260] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT KAPIL DEV VS. SMT. PARKASH WATI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-5-182] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV CORPN LTD VS. ONKAR MAL MITTAL [LAWS(P&H)-2006-4-109] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPALI VS. PANKAJ GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKA INDUSTRIES LTD VS. HARIBANDHU DAS [LAWS(ORI)-2022-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS KAUR VS. YASHPAL PANDIT [LAWS(P&H)-2002-2-150] [REFERRED]
NATHO VS. KANWAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWA MITTER VS. JAGDISH PARSHAD GAIND [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-68] [REFERRED TO]
GULAM MOHAMMAD VS. CHUTTAN [LAWS(ALL)-2005-2-150] [REFFERED TO]
MD. MOTIUR RAHMAN VS. MUSTT ACHIA KAHTOON AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2002-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA SUGAR MILLS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHJANTI DEVI VS. GOMTI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-245] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. SABITRI DEBI AGARWAL [LAWS(GAU)-2003-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
GAURISHANKAR VS. SITA RAM [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-88] [REFERRED TO]
SANATAN GHOSH VS. PRASANTA BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-2008-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY KUMAR JAIN AND 4 OTHERS VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-139] [REFERRED]
SULTAN UL ULOOM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. MIR SHAHMAT ALI KHAN [LAWS(APH)-2003-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
IRAGHAVENDRA VENKATESH BURLI VS. NALANAIKANATH BALAKRISHNADAS GUJJAR [LAWS(KAR)-2002-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
JORGE ALEXANDRE CRUZ LOURENCO VS. LUCAS FERNANDES AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
REETA KUMARI VS. ANISH RANJAN [LAWS(PAT)-2007-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
MEERA SINHA VS. GIRJA SINHA [LAWS(PAT)-2008-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
BIKRAMJEET SINGH VS. RAMESH KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2002-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
GURBINDER PAL KAUR ALIAS RANA VS. MAAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2002-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
E K PALANISAMY VS. MANONMANI; PANEER SELVI; KAMALAVALLI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-313] [REFERRED]
PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED VS. P DAYANANDA PAI [LAWS(KAR)-2012-11-259] [REFERRED]
VINOD KUMAR VS. JAGMOHAN [LAWS(P&H)-2002-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
GLORIO ROSARIO FURTADO VS. THE CATHEDRAL CHAPTER OF THE ARCHIDIOCESE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-194] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2003-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH MOHAMMAD GOLAM BARI ALIAS GOLAM BARI VS. BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAKF BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2005-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
TAHIRA BEGHUM VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/COURT NO. 2 [LAWS(ALL)-2010-5-148] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. SMT. VIJAY LAXMI [LAWS(ALL)-2012-11-160] [REFERRED TO]
H.P.GENERAL INDUSTRIES VS. BATRA TRADERS CORPORATION [LAWS(HPH)-2003-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPLATA SAXENA AND 3 OTHERS VS. SHAKUNTALA SAXENA AND 5 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
ISHAQ VS. CHAMPA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-108] [REFERRED TO]
EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV), LUCKNOW & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-308] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAT MATHUR VS. SHAHZAD BAHADUR [LAWS(DLH)-2002-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
DEV PHARMCY VS. NOVA INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(DLH)-2003-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA DEVI VS. RAJNIKANT SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-444] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD VS. LALIT BHASIN [LAWS(ALL)-2003-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT KAUR VS. SUBHASH PALIWAL [LAWS(SC)-2009-12-31] [DISCUSSED]
TATA FINANCE LIMITED VS. NASEEB KAUR W O JOGINDER SINGH SAINI [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH GANAPAT NARANAWARE VS. ZUNABAI RAJARAM GAIKWAD [LAWS(BOM)-2003-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
K. ACHUTHAN CHETTY VS. K.K. NARAYANAN (DIED) AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-241] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM VS. PISTA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
SONAL KUKRETI VS. MAYUR KUKRETI [LAWS(UTN)-2011-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM NEW ANDRAM PARWANI VS. NANDLAL NAGARDAS VORA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-1-136] [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR R MADAN VS. RAMESH A PHATNANI [LAWS(BOM)-2003-8-125] [REFERRED TO]
NATVARBHAI KHIMJIBHAI THAKKAR VS. AHMEDHAJI ISAJI [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-361] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. BRIJ MOHAN AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-31] [DISTING AIR 1964 SC 497 (DISTING) 3,5]
PRITAM DASS TRADING AS ALKA FOOD INDUSTRIES VS. ANIL FOOD INDUSTRIES [LAWS(DLH)-2004-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
BRIGHT ELECTRICALS VS. RAMESH KUMAR PATEL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-159] [REFERRED TO]
SK. SAJID HOSSAIN VS. M/S. GENERAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-155] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Shortly put, the facts are as follows :-
The suit land originally belonged to Durga Dass who mortgaged the same to Sunder Dass and Udhey Ram. The appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Sunder Dass and Udhey Ram. When it came to the notice of the appellants that on the death of Durga Dass, defendant/respondent No. 1, Dharam Dev got his name mutated in the revenue record, the present suit was filed for declaration of joint ownership of the land of the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on the ground that neither Durga Dass nor his legal heirs could get the suit land redeemed within a statutory period and also for permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from alienating the suit land. In the said suit an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint was filed. It was pleaded that from a subsequent civil suit filed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellants, it came to the knowledge of the appellants that the suit land was sold by Durga Dass to Sunder Dass and Udhey Ram adjusting the mortgage amount and later on a pre-emption suit filed by Amar Nath, son of Kamal Krishna and another, which was decided in the year 1943 and it was decreed that the plaintiffs in that suit on payment of certain amount, within the time specified by the Court, to Sunder Dass and Udhey Ram, the suit would stand decreed and in case of non payment, suit would stand dismissed. The present respondent No. 1 is the son of Amar Nath. It was stated in the said application that as the amount directed by the Court was not paid there was no decree for pre emption and the suit stood dismissed and accordingly, prayer was made for amendment of the plaint. The trial Court allowed the application which was set aside by the High Court by the impugned order on the ground that the appellants want to attack a decree passed in 1943 in the present suit which was filed in the year 1999 and, therefore, it is barred by limitation.

(2.)The short question for determination is whether the impugned order was revisable by the High Court by exercising powers under Section 115, Cr.P.C. The said section runs as follows :-
"115. Revision - (1) 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 subordinate Court appears -

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit;

Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where -

(a) 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

(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

(2) The High Court shall not, under the section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.

Explanation. - In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided "includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding."

(3.)The proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) with explanation was added by the amending Act of 1976. By this amendment the power of the High Court was curtailed, the intention of the legislature being that High Court should not interfere with each and every interlocutory order passed by the trial Court so that the trial of a suit could proceed speedily and that only the interlocutory order coming under clause (a) or (b) of the proviso would be entertained by the High Court .


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.