2002 (9) TMI 882 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Revision under Section 115, CPC against the order dismissing the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC.

Analysis:
1. Preliminary Objection - Maintainability of Revision:
The respondent raised an objection citing the proviso to Section 115(1), CPC, contending that the revision is not maintainable. The court referred to the decision in Sawal Singh v. Smt. Ramsakhi, highlighting the importance of the proviso. The court extensively discussed the proviso, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction is limited to orders finally disposing of suits or proceedings or where revision would have such a final effect. The court agreed with the conclusions drawn in Sawal Singh's case, emphasizing the restricted scope of revision against interlocutory orders.

2. Interpretation of "Order in the Course of a Suit":
The court delved into the meaning of "order in the course of a suit," emphasizing that such orders are interim or interlocutory in nature. The court clarified that the proviso pertains to interim non-appealable orders that, if made in favor of the party seeking revision, would finally dispose of the case. The court highlighted that the proviso excludes appealable orders from its ambit.

3. Appellate Orders and Revisional Jurisdiction:
The court clarified that final appellate orders in appeals under Section 104 or Order 43 Rule 1, CPC are not considered orders in the course of a suit or proceeding. The court emphasized that the proviso does not cover appealable orders, and revision against such orders is permissible if there is a jurisdictional error or specified infirmity.

4. Precedents and Legal Position:
The court referred to various legal precedents to support the maintainability of revision against final appellate orders. The court highlighted that the legislative intent was not to eliminate the revision remedy against final orders passed in appeal. The court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the ratio decidendi of a case and its actual decision in determining legal precedents.

5. Conclusion:
The court concluded that the final appellate order in appeals under Section 104 or Order 43 Rule 1, CPC does not fall within the scope of an order in the course of a suit or proceeding as per the proviso to Section 115(1), CPC. Therefore, the court held that a revision against such appellate orders is not barred by the proviso.

In summary, the judgment extensively analyzed the proviso to Section 115(1), CPC, clarified the scope of revisional jurisdiction, interpreted the term "order in the course of a suit," and established the maintainability of revision against final appellate orders under specific circumstances.