JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The order dated 7th August, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, IInd Court, Muzaffarnagar in Civil Revision No. of 1999 has since been challenged, Before proceeding further. I have, however, observed that in many cases which is coming to this Court that the number of the Civil Revision is not being allotted though the matter is decided finally. It is unfortunate that the District Courts are running without appropriate administration. No matter can be decided without allotting a number. As soon an appeal or revision is presented, it has to be registered. It is not known how the District Judge's Court is being run. Why such numbers are not being allotted? it is also not known how the certified copies are being issued without the number of the case. The learned Registrar shall request the learned District Judges to explain the situation and the report that might be obtained from the learned District Judge shall be placed before this Court along with the records of this case on 5th October. 1999.
2. The said Civil Revision has been dismissed on the ground that the valuation of the subject-matter exceeds Rs. 1 Lakh and as such the revision is outside pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge in respect of the Civil Revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Dixit contends that by reason of the U. P. Amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure through U. P. Act No. 17 of 1991 which came Into force on 15th January, 1991. the pecuniary Jurisdiction of revisional power of the District Judge has been enhanced to Rs. 5 lakh. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar Srtvastava v. Anant Sahkari Anas Samiti Ltd., Allahabad and others. 1999 (1) AWC 636, wherein it was held that a revision arising out of a suit valued at Rs. 1,40,625 lies before the District Court in view of the amendment made in Section 115 through U. P. Act No. 17 of 1991. Relying on this decision, he contends that revision lies before the District Judge and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained. He then contends in a suit for injunction. plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX. Rules I and 2 whereupon notices were directed to be issued under Order XXXIX, Rule 3. While refusing to grant ad interim order against which the said revision was preferred. Mr. Dixit contends that there was no order of refusal to grant ad interim order. Since ihe concerned officer of the prescribed Court was not available on account of vacancy, the Officer incharge of the said Court only directed Issue of notices without adverting to the question of grant or refusal of ad interim order. Therefore. In such peculiar circumstances, it was not a refusal to grant ad interim order though prayer for ad interim order was made. On this ground according to him. the revision is maintainable.
3. I have heard Mr. Madhusudan Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
4. So far as the pecuniary Jurisdiction in respect of the appeal is concerned, the same has been enhanced to Rs. 5 lakhs by virtue of a notification Issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on May 6, 1995 published in the Official Gazette of the same date, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 21(1)(b) of the Bengal. Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. 1887 amended by the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act. 1991. A perusal of the said notification shows that ft was confined to the pecuniary Jurisdiction in respect of the appeals those shall lie to the learned District Judges. The said notification does not deal with the pecuniary jurisdiction with regard to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Whereas by virtue of the amendment brought about under Section 115 of the C.P.C. through Act No. 17 of 1991 shows that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh shall be substituted by the following Section as quoted below :
"115. Revision.--The High Court. In cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings (of the value exceeding one lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees as the High Court may" from time to time fix. by notification published in the Official Gazette including such suits or other proceedings Instituted before the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act. 1991, or as the case may be. the date of commencement of such notification), and the District Court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears--(a)......"
5. In the amendments of Section 115, there is no ambiguity in relation to the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the District Judges. It provides that original suit or other proceedings of such higher amount exceeding one lakh rupees but not exceeding five lakh rupees, as the High Court may from time to time fix may He to the High Court. But such fixation by the High Court is to be made by notification published in the Official Gazette. Such valuation may Include in respect of the suits or other proceedings Instituted before the date of commencement of the 1991 Amendment Act. Thus, it appears that Section 115 as amended makes it clear that those matters in which the valuation does not exceed one lakh rupees will lie before the District Judge. If it exceeds one lakh rupees then Revision will He to the High Court. However, this is subject to the exception that the High Court was granted liberty to fix such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees to be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of a District Judge and that too through a notification published in Official Gazette. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the High Court had ever Issued any notification fixing pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of Seclion 115 of the Code above one lakh rupees as amended by U. P. Act No. 17 of 1991. Unless there is notification enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction beyond one lakh rupees by reason of amended Section 115 through Act No. 17 of 1991. the Jurisdiction of the District Judge is confined to one lakh rupees in respect of Section 115. To my knowledge, there is nothing to show that the High Court had ever published any notification enhancing the value of pecuniary Jurisdiction in respect of Section 115 conferred on the District Judge above one lakh rupees. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Judge holding that the valuation being above one lakh rupees, the Revision does not lie before the learned District Judge, even though the value might be less than five lakh rupees.
6. The decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar Srivastava (supra) has held in paragraph 13 as follows :
"The decision aforesaid found echo in the case of V. Uthirapatht v. Ashrqf Ali and others. JT 1998 SC 55. In my own lights, the language in which Section 92(c) of the Act is couched, is comprehensive enough to attract the relevant provisions relating to execution of decrees and orders of civil court as embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the remedial provisions of appeal or revision contained therein. Since I have taken the view that determination of any question within the meaning of Section 47 of the Code and for that purpose, an order rejecting an execution application is not appeliable under the Code and that such order is a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code, the order under challenge herein is revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A perusal of the plaint (Annexure-2 to the petition) would evince that the value of the suit is pegged at Rs. 1,40.625 and that being so. the revision lies in the District Court in view of the amendment made in Section 115 by U. P. Act No. 17 of 1991 by which the expression of the values of twenty thousand rupees and above, has been substituted by the words of the value exceeding one or such higher amount not exceeding five lakhs rupees". It is in this backdrop that I feel called not to enter into correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the executing court on issues other than those delt upon and answered in this judgment. If aggrieved, the petitioner may invoke the procedure of revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. on ground specified therein.
7. Though in one place it mentions that the value of the suit having been fixed at Rs. 1,40.625, the revision would lie in the District Court in view of the amendment made in Section 115 of U. P. Act No. 17 of 1991. But then it is also observed that it is in this backdrop, the Court did not feel to have been called upon to enter into the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the execution court on issues other than those delt upon and answered in the said decision. In fact, it seems that in the said decision, the Court did not enter into the question in details and had not adverted to Section 115 of the U. P. Amendment of the Code. It was only held that it was a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. So far as the U. P. Amendment is concerned. Section 115 was substituted by the amendment. There is nothing as Section 115A either in the Code or in the U. P. amendment. It is only by West Bengal amendment. Section 115A has been introduced in its application in West Bengal alone. By reason of Section 115A in West Bengal concurrent Jurisdiction has been conferred on the District Judges with those of the High Court under Section 115 without any restriction with regard to the valuation or otherwise. Since both were operating together with the exclusion of either to the extent that if Section 115A is resorted to, a person would not be entitled to invoke Section 115 and vice versa. Thus, the said amendment did not require any valuation or otherwise. Whereas in the U. P. amendment Section 115 has been substituted altogether creating two kinds of jurisdiction having regard to the valuation of the subject matter. In respect of the matters value above one lakh rupees, revision will lie to the High Court. if the valuation is less than one lakh rupees in that event, the revision will lie to the District Judge. However, it was open to the High Court to enhance the valuation by notification alone which is not available. This aspect has not been dealt with in the said decision. Inasmuch as the Court had not adverted to latter part of the amendment namely "as the High Court may from time to time fix, by notification published in the Official Gazette Including suits or other proceedings instituted before the date of commencement of the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 .....
Law enacted or embodied in a Section cannot be Interpreted relying upon only one part of the amendment excluding the other part. The amendment has to be read together. The value exceeding one lakh rupees is not dependent on any notification by the High Court which is attracted by the legislation itself. Whereas such higher amount (exceeding one lakh rupees) not exceeding five lakh rupees is wholly dependent on the issue of notification published in the Official Gazette after High Court fixes such amount higher than one lakh rupees. In the absence of fixation of any higher amount by the High Court through a notification, the Jurisdiction cannot exceed one lakh rupees. Thus, the said decision cannot help Mr. Dixit in respect of the contention raised by him in the present case.
8. So far as the question as to whether an appeal lies or revision lies, it is not necessary to go into at this stage in this case. It is appealable in that event, the subject-matter being valued at rupees less than five lakhs would definitely lie before the learned District Judge. But if it is not revtsable then definitely, it is revisable before this Court. Now it seems that there are substance in the contention of Mr. Dixit with regard to the contention that there was no occasion to refuse grant of ad interim injunction since the Court was vacant and the Court Incharge did not apply his mind and therefore, there was no occasion to refuse the ad interim order. It was simply an order under Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of the Code and as such does not come within the scope and ambit of Order XLIII, Rule 1 (a) of the Code which makes such order appealable.
9. It appears that the Court is vacant and the Court Incharge after having attained to its own cases, had been looking after the cases of the vacant Court. The direction to issue notices under Rule 3 was in fact presuppose that the Court Incharge did not advert to the situation and had not applied its mind as to the question whether sufficient ground has been made out or not for grant of ad interim order before issue of notice under Rule 3. As such apparently it appears that there was no refusal to grant of ad interim order which could bring the order within the scope of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 so as to make it appealable under Rule XLIII (1) (a) of the Code, thus it seems that the order is revisable. But then it is not necessary to go into those questions at this stage. Inasmuch as in the meantime, notices had been issued and the impugned order was passed on 6th July, 1999. Therefore. since Rule 3 has been complied with, it will be open to the plaintiff-petitioner to approach to the learned trial court for grant of ad interim order. If it so approaches, the Court Incharge shall take up the matter if the Court is still vacant or such Court as may be nominated by the learned District Judge. Muzaffamagar on the date fixed and pass appropriate order in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In case despite having taken steps under Rule 3, the defendants have not appeared still then petitioner prays for ad interim order and the Court will apply its mind and advert to the facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Such question shall be determined even if the defendant prays for time or adjournment. In such circumstances. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Muzaffamagar on 7th August, 1999 in the Civil Revision since been not numbered.
10. If no date is fixed and if the petitioner makes an application before the learned District Judge, he will pass an order within a week from making such application, fixing a date and nominating the Court. In case there is no appearance of the defendant, the petitioner shall serve a copy of the application before filing the same before the learned District Judge or may communicate the decision of the learned District Judge in writing to the counsel of the defendants. It is contended that the defendants had already appeared through counsel. Service upon the counsel for the defendants will be deemed to be sufficient as service upon the defendants for the purpose of taking steps pursuant to this order. It is pointed out that there is one learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and another learned Civil Judge, Junior Division. It would be open to the learned District Judge to assign the matter either to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division or the learned Civil Judge. Junior Division as he may deem fit and proper in order to ensure that the matter is taken up and appropriate order is passed in terms of the observation made herein at the earliest preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing the application.
11. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.