Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pushpa Devi (Smt.) vs Urban Improvement Trust And Anr. on 14 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: RLW2004(4)RAJ2666, 2004(4)WLC177
JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. All the aforesaid three revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved.
S.B. Civil Revision No. 805/99
2. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 84/84 by which he allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the respondent No. 2 was made party to that suit as defendant No. 2.
3. Necessary facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:-
The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit being No. 84/84 for injunction against the respondent No. 1 Urban Improvement Trust (for short "the Trust") alleging interalia that she was the owner of the dispute property and the defendant-respondent No. 1 had no right to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. After nearabout 15 years of filing of that suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the respondent No. 2 for being impleaded as party in that suit stating interalia that the disputed land was going to be allotted to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1 Trust through order dated 1.12.1983 and thereafter, on 21.4.1984, possession of the disputed land was handed over to the respondent No. 2 and therefore, according to the respondent No. 2, he was necessary party to that suit, which was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the respondent No. 1 Trust, After hearing the parties, the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Bikaner through impugned order dated 31.3.1999 allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC holding inter-alia that through proposal No. 4 of the respondent No. 1 Trust dated 26.4.1982, the land in question was to be allotted to the respondent No. 2 (added party) and further, on 24.4.1984, the possession of the land in question was also handed over to the respondent No. 2 (added party) and thus, in view of these facts, the learned Addl. Civil Judge came to the conclusion that for deciding the suit of the plaintiff- petitioner, the respondent No. 2 was a necessary party.
Aggrieved from the said order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Bikaner, the plaintiff- petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Court on 30.6. 1999.
4. The main case of the learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner is that since the suit was filed in the year 1984 and after so many years of filing of that suit, the respondent No. 2 through application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC sought impleadement as party-defendant No. 2 to that suit, therefore, the application was belated one and furthermore, there was no substance in that application and thus, it should have been rejected.
5. On the contrary, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that in view of the amendment made in Section 115 CPC through Amendment Act 46 of 1999, which came into force on 1.7.2002, the present revision is not maintainable as the impugned order was interlocutory order as it had not decided the matter finally and thus, this revision has become infructuous and it should be dismissed as such. Apart from this, even on merits, the plaintiff-petitioner has got no case. Hence, it was prayed that the revision filed by the plaintiff- petitioner be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and gone through the entire materials available on record.
7. There is no dispute on the point that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC' was filed by the respondent No. 2 with some delay, but the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) in his impugned order dated 31.3.1999 had given cogent reasons for impleading the respondent No. 2 as party-defendant No. 2 to that suit as according to him, the presence of the respondent No. 2 (added party) before the Court was necessary ineffectually nd completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.
8. Before proceeding further, the. preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has to be answered.
9. There can be no dispute on the point that in view of the amendment made in Section 115 CPC by amendment Act 46 of 1999 which has become operative from 1.7.2002, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has now been materially restricted. The effect of the amendment is that even if the order sought to be impugned suffers from jurisdictional error it cannot be interfered with under Section 115 CPC unless it can be shown and found that if the order impugned would have been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.
10. Thus, now the revision against interlocutory order would not be maintainable if it would not have effect of finally disposing of suit or other proceedings.
11. So far as allowing of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the learned Addl. Civil Judge through impugned order dated 31.3.1999 is concerned, in my considered opinion, by doing so, it cannot be said that it would have the effect of finally disposing of the suit and therefore, the impugned order would be termed s an interlocutory order and thus, against that order, now revision is not maintainable.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur vs. Swaraj Developers, 2003 (6) SCC 659, has issued guidelines as to when revision petition is maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case observed that the question to be asked is whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision in the courts below would have given finality to the suit or other proceedings and if answer is in the affirmative, then revision petition is maintainable, otherwise not.
13. In Prern Bakshi and Ors. vs. Dharam Dev and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 559, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that order allowing application under Order G Rule 17 CPC for amendment could not be said to have finally disposed of the case.
14. On the same reasoning, it can easily be said that the impugned order dated 31.3.1999 allowing application of the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading as party-defendant to the suit does not amount to finally deciding the case and furthermore, the impugned order could not be said to have finally disposed of the case because in such a situation, the plaintiff-petitioner would get opportunity to file her additional claim against the claim filed by the added defendant- respondent No. 2 and she would be able to raise all her defences and contest the matter. From this point of view also, the impugned order would be treated as an interlocutory order.
Whether amended provisions of Section 115 CPC apply to pending revisions or not.
15. In my considered opinion, amended provisions of Section 115 CPC apply to pending proceedings, which have not been finally disposed of prior to 1.7.2002, though these proceedings/revisions were admitted prior to amendment made in Section 115 CPC.
16. Thus, the pending revisions are now to be disposed of as per the amended provisions of Section 115 CPC and in view of amended provisions of Section 115 CPC, the impugned order dated 31.3.1999 by which the application of the respondent No. 2 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed, is nothing, but an interlocutory order and no revision would lie against such order and therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed as such.
17. Since the revision petition is going to be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability, the merits of the case has not been examined.
S.B. Civil Revision No. 813/99 S.B. Civil Revision No. 777/99
18. These two revisions also raise the same questions of law and facts, which have been decided above in S.B. Civil Revision No. 805/99 and thus, for the reasons given in S.B. Civil Revision No. 805/99, these two revision petitions are also not maintainable and the same are also liable to be dismissed as such.
Accordingly, all the aforesaid three revision petitions are dismissed, as being not maintainable.