Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A.C.M.L. Prasad And Ors. vs Shaik Madar @ Shaik Lal on 12 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(5)ALD390
JUDGMENT G. Bikshapathy, J.
1. Both these revisions can be disposed of by a common order. The revision petitions are filed by the landlord. The lower Court condoned the delay in filing the application to set aside ex parte decree dated 8-6-1990 in ATC No.9 of 1990 and dated 26-7-1991 in ATC No.4 of 1990, against the said orders, the present revisions are filed.
2. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned Counsel for respondent that under Section 16(2) of A.P. (A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956, an appeal lies to the District Court and therefore the revision is not maintainable. He also submits that the present revisions filed under Section 115 of CPC are not maintainable in view of the amendments made to Civil Procedure Code.
3. Learned Counsel for petitioner, however, submits that de hors the appeal provision, it is always open for this Court to entertain the revision when the order passed is without jurisdiction.
4. I am afraid, I cannot accept the said contention. Section 16(2) of the Act, reads as under:
"Against any order passed by the Special Officer under this Act, an appeal shall lie to the District Judge having jurisdiction, within 30 days of passing of the order; and (he decision of the District Judge on such appeal shall be final."
5. Therefore, by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 16, against any order passed by the Special Officer, an appeal lies to the District Court having jurisdiction.
6. In the above circumstances, the revisions under Section 115 of CPC or Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable and the petitioner has to seek the appeal remedy as provided under Section 16(2) of the Act. Accordingly the revisions are dismissed. However, this order, does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Appellate Court, if he so chooses. No costs.