- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kanpur Nagar passed an order on 26-7-2002 in Misc. Case No. 9/74 of 2000. The suit giving rise to the Misc. Case was valued at Rs. 450 only. Undisputedly this revision challenging the aforesaid order, would not have been maintainable before the High Court and would be maintainable before the District Judge before CPC Amendment Act (Central Act 22 of 2002 ).
(2.) IN fact it was originally filed before the District Judge who refused to entertain it in view of the said amendment by an almost non-speaking order dated 24-8-2002. It would have been appreciated if the learned District Judge while dealing with such a vital question of law of general importance would have been more lucid and given a minimum of reasons in support of the view taken by him. Therefore now this revision has been filed here. The learned Counsel for the revisionist does not challenge the view taken by the District Judge, but the Stamp Reporter of the High Court has, in his report, raised the objection that the revision is not maintainable here and is maintainable before the District Judge. IN view of this objection it has become necessary to examine the post-2002 amendment legal position regarding Section 115 CPC. It may be mentioned here that the view taken by the learned District Judge Kanpur Nagar in interpreting Section 16 (1) of the CPC (Amendment) Act (22 of 2002), the same view as was taken by this Court in Tungal Ram v. Smt. Leelawati, in reported in AIR 1978 All 46 and Jupiter Chit Fund v. Dwarka Dhish, reported in AIR 1979 All. 218 (FB ). In Section 115 of the CPC as enacted and amended from time to time by the Central Legislature the power of revision was conferred only on the High Court. The District Judge had no power of revision. Realizing the avoidable pressure being caused upon the High Court, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature by State Amendments to Section 115 CPC conferred the power of revision upon the District Judges also against the orders passed in suits below a certain valuation. Such amendments were made in the years 1970, 1972 and 1973. After the Central Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976, it became necessary for the Uttar Pradesh Legislature to intervene again by U. P. Act No. 31 of 1978 to re-confer the revisional powers upon the District Judges.
(3.) IMMEDIATELY before the enforcement of Central Amendment Act 22 of 2002, in this State of Uttar Pradesh, Revisions arising out of suits upto the valuation of Rs. One lakh lay before the District Judge in view of the U. P. Act No. 31 of 1978. The revisions from suits of higher valuation lay before the High Court. By the Central Act 22 of 2002 no amendment has been made to Section 115 of the 'principal Act' but Section 16 (1) of the said Act is as follows: 16. Repeals and savings.- (1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provisions are consistent with the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed. " "principal Act" according to Section 2 of the Act No. 22 of 2002 means the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Two questions arise. First whether the non-amendment of Section 115 CPC by the Central Act 22 of 2002 would leave the U. P. Amendment of 1978 intact, and second whether the amendment of Section 115 CPC by U. P. Act No. 31 of 1978 is consistent with Section 115 CPC as contained in the Central Act. So far as the first question above is concerned it stands answered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "ganpat v. II Addl. District Judge Ballia", reported in AIR 1986 SC 589, and it must be held that the fact that the Amending Act No. 22 of 2002 has not amended Section 115 CPC is irrelevant. So far as the second question above is concerned it also stands covered by the decisions in the cases Taugal Ram and Jupter Chit Fund (supra) and it cannot be said that the U. P. Amendment of 1978 to Section 115 CPC is consistent with the 'principal Act. ';