- (1.) ON account of the difference of opinion between G. C. Mathur and H. N. Seth, JJ., the papers were laid before the Chief Justice for referring the matter either to a third Judge or to a Bench of three Judges. As there existed no conflict in the decisions of the Court it was not considered necessary to refer the matter to a Full Bench. It has been heard by me and after I have given my opinion, the revision shall go back to the Bench for expression of final opinion on the question of law involved.
(2.) THE present revision arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Meerut in a revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The question for consideration is whether the present revision is maintainable. In many other revisions the order passed by the District Judge in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction had been challenged. The Division Bench decided to express an opinion on the maintainability of the revisions and to leave the question of admission of the revisions to a single Judge. G. C. Mathur, J. is of opinion that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by S. 2 of the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973, no revision lies against orders passed by the subordinate Courts in appeals or revisions. H. N. Seth, J. is of the contrary view provided that in deciding the appeal or revision the appellate or the revisional Court has committed an error of jurisdiction of the nature mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) thereof. The material part of Section 115, Civil P. C. as it originally stood, is as below :- "The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court......... the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit." The section was first amended by Section 3 of the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 (U. P. Act 14 of 1970) by substituting the words "High Court or District Court" for the words "High Court" wherever they occurred in Section 115. At the same time, the following proviso was inserted :- "Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to empower the District Court to call for the record of any case arising out of an original suit of the value of twenty thousand rupees or above."
(3.) WHY the amendments were made would appear from paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons which run as follows :- "2. It was also decided to amend the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, for increasing the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the District Judges from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000 with a view to reducing arrears in the High Court. The fall in the value of the rupee since 1887 (when the limit of Rs. 5,000 was fixed) also justified further increase in the appellate jurisdiction of District Judges. 4..........In particular, it is inter alia proposed to confer on District Courts, concurrently with the High Court, the power of revision in respect of cases in which the appeal would lie to the District Court. This will also help in reducing the pressure of work on the High Court." ;