9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of transfer, jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115 C.P.C., maintainability of revision petition, exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C., compliance with provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 80 C.P.C. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an application challenging an order of transfer issued to the plaintiff, who subsequently filed a suit seeking to declare the transfer order as void and illegal. The Munsiff granted an ex parte temporary injunction restraining the implementation of the transfer order. The revision petition was filed against this injunction order. 2. The issue of maintainability of the revision petition was raised, with the plaintiff arguing that the High Court cannot entertain the revision petition as an appeal lies to a subordinate court. However, the court clarified that the amended Section 115 C.P.C. bars revision against orders appealable to either the High Court or a subordinate court. 3. The court examined whether the Munsiff correctly exercised his inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. The plaintiff contended that the order was passed under Order 39, Rule 2 C.P.C., making it appealable and not amenable to revision. However, the court found that the Munsiff explicitly stated he exercised inherent powers, making the order challengeable through revision. 4. The court delved into precedents where inherent powers were invoked contrary to specific provisions of the CPC. It was established that inherent powers should not override existing procedural rules unless in exceptional circumstances where the Code is silent. The court cited cases emphasizing that inherent powers should not be used when specific provisions exist for the same matter. 5. The crucial issue was whether the Munsiff correctly invoked Section 151 C.P.C. to grant the temporary injunction. The court analyzed the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 80 C.P.C., which mandate giving the government an opportunity to show cause before granting urgent relief. The court found that the Munsiff's decision to bypass this requirement and use inherent powers was unjustified, especially considering the lack of urgency in the plaintiff's actions. 6. Ultimately, the court held that the Munsiff's order exceeded jurisdiction by not adhering to the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 80 C.P.C. and by invoking inherent powers against clear legal provisions. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the injunction order was set aside, and the rule was made absolute with no costs awarded.
|
