Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sher Singh And Anr. vs Kashmiri Lal Chaman Lal Saraf on 17 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)119PLR225, 1998 A I H C 3469, (1998) 199 PUN LR 225, (1998) 2 RENTLR 192, (1998) 2 RECCIVR 447, (1998) 2 ICC 430, (1998) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 652
ORDER Sat Pal, J.
1. This petition has been directed against the Order dated 2.8.1997, passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27(b) C.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that the proposed additional evidence was very much essential for the effective adjudication of matter in controversy between the parties. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent.
2. Mr. Manjul Sud, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that a revision petition Under Section 115 C.P.C. is not maintainable against an order passed by the learned lower appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27(b) C.P.C. in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gurdev Singh and Ors. v. Mehanga Ram and Anr., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3572.
3. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the revision petition is maintainable, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in an earlier judgment in Sarda and Ors. v. Manikkoth Kombra Rajendran, 1996(2) Rent Revenue Reporter, 680.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned Order dated 2.8.1997, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, I am of the opinion that the point raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdev Singh (supra). In the case of Gurdev Singh (supra) it was clearly laid down by the Apex Court that the revision Under Section 115 C.P.C. was not maintainable against any order passed by the learned lower appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27(b) C.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the learned lower appellate court on 31.3.1998.