- (1.) SHIV Charan Sharma, J. Under challenge in this Civil Revision is the judg ment and decree dated 22nd December, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Pratapgarh in Civil Revision No. 52/1999. Awadhesh Singh and others v. Chhote Lal Singh and others. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Revi sional Court allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 8th January, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No. 70/1997. By the impugned order, learned Appellate, Court decided the Issue No. 3 at the pre liminary stage regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. The Revi sional Court held that the suit is barred by section 331-A of the U. P. Zamindari Aboli tion and Land Reforms Act.
(2.) AT the preliminary stage, learned Counsel for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection regarding the main tainability of this Civil Revision and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties argued that a second revision is not maintainable to this Court under section 115 C. P. C. and the impugned order challenged in this revision was passed in Civil Revi sion No. 52/1999. One more objection has also been raised that the present Civil Re vision cannot be converted in a writ peti tion. On these preliminary objections of learned Counsel for the opposite parties namely Sri P. V. Chaudhary and Sri A. S. Chaudhary, Advocates, I have heard Sri B. P. Singh. Advocate for the revisionist and perused the entire material on record. From a perusal of the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2004, it is evident that this judgment and order was passed by the Revisional Court in the revision and learned Counsel for the opposite parties argued that against the judgment and order of the Revisional Court, a second revision is not maintainable in the High Court and in support of his contention, learned Counsel for the opposite parties cited Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad 1980 (6) ALR 233 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case held that:- "it seems to us that to recognize a revi sional power in the High Court over a revisional order passed by the District Judge would plainly defeat the object of the legislative scheme. The intent behind the bi furcation of jurisdiction to reduce the number of revision petitions filed in the High Court would be frustrated. The scheme would, in large measure, lose its meaning. If a revision petition is permitted to the High Court against the revisional order of the District Judge arising out of a suit of a value less than Rs. 20,000/-, a fundamental contradiction would be allowed to invade and destroy the division of revisional power between the High Court and the District Court, for the High Court would then enjoy jurisdictional power in respect of an order arising out of a suit of a valuation below Rs. 20,000/ -. That was never intended at all. " Hon'ble the Apex Court in the afore said case further held that:- "the valuation of the suit is irrelevant. But the proviso cannot be con strued to include the case of a re- visional order passed by the Dis trict Court, for that would be in di rect conflict with the fundamental structure itself of section 115 evi dencing that a mutually exclusive jurisdiction has been assigned to the High Court and the District Court within its terms. A proviso cannot be permitted by construc tion to defeat the basic intent ex pressed in the substantive provi sion. Har Prasad Singh (supra) and Phoohvati (supra) were considered by a Full Bench of the High Court in Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Divarka Diesh Dayal 1979 (5) ALR 380 and, in our judgment, the High Court rightly laid down there that the phrase "case arising out of an original suit" occurring in section 115 does not cover orders passed in revision. 15. We are of opinion on the first question that the High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, over a revisional order made by the District Court under that section.
(3.) HENCE, this is a direct judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the matter in controversy and a definite judgment has been delivered that no revision is maintainable in the High Court against the order passed by the District Judge under section 115 C. P. C. and this argument of learned Counsel for the opposite parties is justified that a second revision is not maintainable in this Court. Learned Counsel for the revision ist has not shown any law contrary to it. There can be no reason to dispute this set tled position of law and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is the law of land. Hence, I am of the opinion that a sec ond revision is not maintainable in this Court whereas the revisionist has filed a second revision in this Court after the judgment and order of the Revisional Court dated 22nd December, 2004 passed in Civil Revision No. 52/1999.;