Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, question the order passed by the Revisional Court whereby the revision was allowed and the order passed by the Trial Court dated 17th April, 1984 was set aside and the application 4 -Ga of the applicant -respondent moved under section 151, C.P.C. setting aside the final decree is also dismissed. The facts leading to the present writ petition are that the petitioners Mahesh Chandra Bhargava and others who were plaintiffs of Suit No. 183 of 1974, filed an application for setting aside exparte decree under section 151, C.P.C. This application is dated 19th May, 1982. Before the application 4 -Ga was allowed by the Trial Court which was an application under section 151, C.P.C. the Trial Court rejected the application for setting aside exparte decree dated 20th March, 1982. Thereafter, this application 4 -Ga was filed purporting to be an application under section 151, C.P.C.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order dated 17th April, 1984 the petitioners preferred revision before the Revisional Court. The argument advanced was as to whether the order impugned in the writ petition dated 20th March, 1982 will be covered by the phrase "case decided" so as to give a jurisdiction to Revisional Court in exercise of power under section 115, C.P.C. No other argument was advanced. The Revisional Court accepted the argument and allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 17th April, 1984 passed by the Trial Court and rejected the application 4 -Ga said to have been filed under section 151, C.P.C. The consequence of order of Revisional Court is that exparte decree is set aside and the matter is left open to be decided on merits.
(3.) WHEN this writ petition was filed by the petitioners, this Court by its order dated 24th April, 1988 stayed the operation of the order dated 25th January, 1988. Before me the learned Counsel for the petitioners repeated the same argument but in view of Full Bench relied upon by the Revisional Court in my opinion, it is not open to the respondent to challenge the exercise of jurisdiction of Revisional Court under section 115, C.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that on facts no case for setting aside the decree is made out. I am afraid that this argument based on questions of fact which is neither raised before the Revisional Court nor even in the writ petition cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court in this writ petition. Since none of the arguments, advanced on behalf of the petitioners, is tenable, this writ petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any stands vacated.;