Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 277 of 2016 Revisionist :- Anoop G. Chaudhari And Another Opposite Party :- Col. Jml Kapoor, Vsm (Retd.) Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anshu Chaudhary
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant revision is directed against an order dated 09.03.2016 passed in Original Suit No.602 of 2010. The revision is by the defendant in the suit and the order impugned allowed an application for amendment of the plaint.
It appears that initially a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed. However, it was permitted to be converted into the revision under Section 115 CPC on the basis of a report of the Stamp Reporter.
In my considered opinion, an order allowing an amendment of the plaint as is the position in the case at hand, does not amount to a case decided within the meaning of the term in Section 115 CPC. The position however would be entirely where an application for amendment has been rejected.
Moreover, in support of the view above, counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. M/s Swaraj Developers and others, AIR 2003 SC 2434, especially paragraph 32 thereof, wherein it has been held that only an order, which gives finality to the suit or other proceedings, is revisable under Section 115 CPC.
Needless to say, an order allowing an amendment application does not give any finality to the suit or the proceedings.
Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the decision in Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. Sirajul Haq and others, 2006(3) AWC 2182. It has been submitted that relying upon this judgement, the Stamp Reporter had reported that the order impugned could be challenged by means of a revision under Section 115 CPC.
In my considered opinion, this judgement can not be relied upon because therein an amendment applicant had been rejected, which aspect has already been dealt with, herein- above.
Under the circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that this revision is not maintainable and the petition under Article 227 as originally framed, was the proper and only remedy available against the impugned order.
The revision is held to be not maintainable.
Under the circumstances, therefore, Counsel for the revisionist is granted liberty to seek recall of the order dated 12.08.2016, whereby the petition under Article 227 was permitted to be converted in to a revision.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 RKM Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.08.27 10:00:05 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad