Holding

The High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure over a revisional order passed by a District Court, whether that order is made under Section 115 of the Code or under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered five civil revision petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) that were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court examined whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC over a revisional order made by a District Court either under the same Section 115 or under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Relying on the legislative history of successive Uttar Pradesh amendments that bifurcated revisional powers between the High Court and the District Court, the Court held that allowing the High Court to review a District Court's revisional order would defeat the statutory scheme. It further observed that the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is a self‑contained code and its remedies are exclusive, precluding the application of CPC Section 115. Consequently, the appeals and special leave petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure over an order of the District Court made under Section 115 disposing of a revision petition.
Whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the District Court made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act disposing of a revision petition.

Legislation cited

Subjects

revisional jurisdictionSection 115 CPCProvincial Small Cause Courts ActHigh CourtDistrict Courtcivil procedurelegislative intentjurisdictional errorspecial leave petitionappealbifurcation of jurisdiction

Judgment

32

A VISHESH KUMAR
v.
SHANTI PRASAD
March 12, 1980
B
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J

Code of Civil Procedure-S. 115-State amend1nents bifurcated revisional
jurisdiction between High Court and District Court-High Court-ff possessea
revisional jurisdiction from an order of District Judge disposing of revision
C pelitiou.

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act-Section 25-High Court-If possesses
jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. against an order of District Judge under
section 25 of the Act disposing of a revision petition.

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers on the High Court of
& State poWer to remove any jurisdictional error committed by a subordinate
D court in cases where the error cannot be corrected by resort to its appellate
jurisdiction. From its inception there was increasing resort to the revisiooal
jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 115. To alleviate the burden of arrears
and reduce the vo1ume of litigation which had reached an insuportable point,
s. 115 was amended by successive state amendments, each amendment attempt~
ing to close the gap left by its predecessor. The amendments conferred revisional
jurisdiction both on the High Court and the District Court each enjoying
E mutually exclusive revisional powers. The consistent object b~hind the suc-
coosive amendments was to divide the work load of revision petitions between
the High Court and the District Court and decentralise the jurisdiction. A
proviso was added to s. 115 by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1973
declaring that "in respect of cases ...... arising out of original suits of any
valuation decided by the District Court the High Court alone shall be com-
petent to make an order under this section."
I'
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 superseded the
acheme of bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction with effect from I st February
1977. With certain modifications the position reverted to what it was under
the original s. 115. An exception was made where a revision petition under
1. 115 had been admitted after preliminary hearing before 1st February 1977;
it would continue to be governed by s. 115 as it stood before that date.
G But the Code of Civil Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act 1978 substantially
·restored the status quo ante.

Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was amended from
time to time in its application to the State of U.P. 'The first amendment sub-
stituted the District Judge for the High Court. A further amendment made
in 1972 added a proviso which declared that in relation to any case decided
r
" by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising jurisdiction of a
Judge of Small Causes Court the power of revision under s. 25 would vcat
in the High Court.
VISHESH KUMAR V. SHANTI PRASAD 33

The two questions that fell' for consideration were : (il whether the High .\
<:wrt possesses the revisional jurisdiction under s. 115 of the Code of CTvil
tl'rocedv.re in respect of an oro'r of the District Court under s. 115 disposin1
of a revision petition and (ii) whether the High Court possesses revisional
jurisdiction under s. 115 against an order of District Court under s. 25 Pro-
vincial Small Cause Courts Act disposing of a revision petition,

HEID : The High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under 8
1. 115 Code of Civil Procedure over the revisional order made by the District
'Court under that section. [40 HJ

(1) To recognise a revisional power in the High 'Court over the revisional
--order passed by the District Court would plainly defeat the object of the legis-
lative scheme. The intent behind the bifurcation of jurisdiction-to reduce
the number of revision petitions filed in the High Court-would be frustrated.
The scheme would lose its meaning. If a revision petition is permitted to
c
the High Court against the revisional order of the District Court arising out
~of a suit of a value less than Rs. 20,000 a fundamental contradiction would
be allowed to invade and destroy the division of revisional power between the
High Cwrt and the District Court, for the High Court would then enjoy
jurisdictional power in respect of an order arising out of a suit of a valuation
-of below Rs. 20,000/-· [39 G-H] D
(b) What the proviso introduced in s. 115 by the Civil Laws Amendment
Act, 1973, stated was that no matter what the valuation of the original suit,
!f a case arising out of such suit was decided by the District Court, the case
-would be amenable to the revisional power of the High Court. What is
covered by the substantive provision are cases arising out of original suits of
.a value of Rs. 20,000/- or more. The other category covered by the proviso
would include those instances where an original suit, although of a value
E
making it triable by a court subordinate, is transferred to the District Court
~for trial. Orders passed by the District Court in such a suit could constitute
:a case decided by it and amenable to the revisional power of the High Court.
The test incorporated in the proviso is the fact that the case has been decided
"by the District Court. The valuation of the suit is irrelevant. The proviso
cannot be construed to include the case of a revisional order passed by the
:Oiltrict Conrt for that would be in direct conflict with the fundlunental struc-
F
._.L. ture itself of section 115. A proviso cannot be permitted by construction
:lo defoot the basic intent expressed in the substantive provision. [40 C-F]

Mjs. Jupiter Fund (P>'t.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others A.l.R.
'1979 AD. 218 approved.

2. {a) An order passed under s. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts G
\ Act by a District Court is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the
.'High Court under s. 115 of the C.P.C. [42 Fl

(b) An examination of the several provisions of the Provincial Small Cause
·Courts Act indicates that it is a self-sufficient code so far as the present enquiry
ia c.oo.cemed. The Legislature clearly intended that a decree or order made
·<by a Coort of Small Causes should be final subjeot only to correction by the 8'
.,...medics provided under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. All the
ru.dications contained in the Act point to the conclusion that a case falling
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R•.

A within the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was never intended to be sub-
ject to the remedies provided by the Code of Civil Procedure. By \Vay of
abundant caution, s. 7 of the Code made express provision barring the appli-
cation of ss. 96 to 112 and 115 of the Code to courts constituted under the y
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Section 7 of the Code merely embodies
the general principle against resort to remedies outside the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act. Although the court of the District Judge is not a court con-
B stituted under the Act the general principle continues to take effect. No change
in the principle was brought about merely because revisional power under s.
25, before th,e proviso was added, was now entrusted to the District Judge. The·
legislative intention behind the amendment was to relieve the High Court of
the burden of exercising revisional jurisdiction in respect of cases decided under
the Provincial Small Cause Courts' Act. Therefore the central principle conti-·
nues to bold, notwithstanding the amendment effected in s. 25, that the·
c hierarchy of remedies enacted in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act repre-
sents a complete and final order of remedies, and it is not possible to proceed
outside the Act to avail of a superior remedy provided by another:
statute. [41 E-42A-Dl

Bim/a Rani Kohli v. M/s. Bandu Motor Finance Pvt. Ltd. A.I.R. 1972 AIL
342; over-ruled.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2844of1979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
17-8-197~ pf \he Allahabad Hi~ <;'ourt in Civil Revision No. 1273
\)f 1976.
-Pramod SwariijJ for the Appeliant
N. K. Agarwal for the Respondent (A1nicus C11riae).f
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave and the four associated'.
speCial lea'e petitions question the dismissal by the. High Court
of Allahabad of five revision petitions filed under Section 115, Code
F
of Civil Procedu1e, en the ground that they are not maintainable.
Although the five cases before us must be considered .in the
context of their individual facts, it is ' desirable to appreciate the
relevant jurisdictional structure of revisional power. ~njoyed by the
High Com t fr cm time to time. In 1970, the prov1S1ons of s. 115,
Code of Civil Procedure, read :
"115 Revision : The High Court may call for the record of
any cas~ which has been decided by any court subordin.ate to such
High Court, and in which no appeal lies thereto, ! and 1f such court r
subordinate appears :
H (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. or
(b) to have exercised a jurisdiction so vested, or
VISHESH KUMAR v. SHANTI PRASAD (Pathak, ].) 35

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally
}
with material irregularity,
• the High Court may make such order in the case as it deems fit."
A schematic analysis of the judicial hierarchy within a State indi-
cates that the High Court, as the apex court in the hierarchy, has
been entrusted, not only with the supreme appellate power exercised B
within the State but also, by virtue of s. J15, the power to remove,
in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, any jurisdictional error
committed by a subordinate court in those cases where the error
cannot be corrected by resort to its appellate jurisdiction. The two
salient features cf revisicnal jurisdiction under s. Jl5 are, on the one c
hand, the closely limited grounds on which the court is permitted
to interfere and on the other, the wide expanse of discretion available
to the c0urt, when it decides to interfere, in making an appropriate
order. The intent is that so serious an error as one of jurisdiction,
if committed by· a subordinate court, should not remain uncorrected,
and should be removed and the record healed of the infirmity by
an order shaped to re-instate the proceeding within the proper jurisdic-
tional confines of the subordinate court. It is a power of superin-
tendence, and fittingly it has been conferred in terms enabling the
High Court to exercise it, not only when moved by art aggrieved
person, but also suo motu. While considering the nature and scope
of the revisional jurisdiction, it is necessary however, to advert E
to prime circumstance that in civil cases the jurisdiction has been
entrusted to the highest court of the State, demonstrating that broadly
the order under s. 115 is to be regarded, in the absence of any-
thing else, as a final order within the State judiciary.
From its inception there was increasing resort to the revisional F
jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 115. Over the years the volume
of litigation reached an insupportable point in the pending docket
of the Court. To alleviate the burdrn, a pattern of decentra-
lisation of revisional power was adopted and s. 115 was amended
by successive State amendments, each attempting to close the gap
left by its predecessor. In its meandering course from stage to
stage, this is hows. 115 read :
1. From 7th April, 1970 :

"· By virtue of s. 3, U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,
1970, s. 115 was amended and the result was that :
(i) The High Court had exclusive jurisdiction under ff;
s. 115 in a case arising out of an original suit of the value of
Rs. 20,000 and above; and
•
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.

-·A (ii) The High Court and the District Court had juris-
diction under s. 115 concurrently in other cases.
2. From 20th September, 1972:
S. 6, U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 amended s. 115
further with effect from 20th September, 1972. Later, s. 115 was
amended by s. 2, U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 in its
application to Uttar Pradesh, retrospectively with effect from 20th
September, 1972. In consequence :
(i) The High Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction
under s. 115 in cases arising out of original suits of the value
of Rs. 20,000 and above, including such suits instituted
before 20th September, 1972:
+
(ii) Th~ District Court possessed exclusive jurisdi-
tion under s. 115 in any other case, including a case
arising out of an original ·suit instituted before
20th September, 1972.
Provided that in respect of cases decided before 20th September,
1972 and also all cases arising out of original suits of any valuation,
decided by the District Court, the High Court alone was competent
to exercise revisional power under s. 115.
S. 2 (e), U.P. President's Acts (Re-enactment with Modifications)
E Act, 1974 repealed the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973, and
re-enacted it with certain modifications which, however, for the pur-
poses of the present case are immaterial.
3. From !st February, 1977 :
S. 43, Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 was ena-
cted by Parliament and amended s. 115 with effect from !st Feb-
F ruary, 1977 making substantial changes therein. Section 97 (I) of the
Amendment Act provided that any amendment ·made, or provision
inserted, in the Code of Civil Procedure by a . State Legislature
before the !st February, 1978 would stand repealed except insofar
as such amendment or provision was consistent with the Code as
[ amended by the said Amendment Act.· As the Code now amended
provided for revisional jurisdiction in the High Court alone, the
.scheme embodied in s. 115 by the successive U.P. Amendment Acts
was plainly inconsistent with the Code as now amended, and
-therefore stood repealed, the position reverting to what it was under 1'
I
1he original s. 115 before its amendment by the U.P. Civil Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1970. Buts. 97(2) provided that s. 115 as now
amended by the Amendment Act, 1976 would not apply to nor
affect any proceeding for revision which had been admitted, after
•
VJSHESH KUMAR v. SHANTI PRASAD (Pathak,].) 37

) preliminary hearing, before !st February, 1977 and every such pro· A-.
ceeding for revision would be disposed of as if s. 43 had not come in·
to force. The proviso was without prejudice to the generality of
the provisions of s. 6, General Clauses Act, 1897. In the result :
(i) The High Court had exclusive jurisdiction under s. 115 in a
revision petition filed on and after that date, irrespective of the valua·
tion of the suit out of which the case arose :
(ii) A revision petition under s. 115 which had been admitted,
after preliminary hearing, before !st February, 1977 would continue
to be governed by s. 115 as it stood before that date.
4. From !st August, 1978 :
Finally s. 3, Code of Civil Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amend-
ment), Act, 1978, which was deemed to have come into force on !st
August, 1978, amended s. 115 again and restored the bifurcation of
revisional jurisdiction between the High Court and the District Court.
Accordingly now :
))..
(i) The High Court alone had jurisdiction under s. 115 in cases
arising out of original suits. or other proceedings of the value of
Rs. 20,000 and above, including such suits or other proceedings
instituted before !st August, 1978;
(ii) The District Court alone has jurisdiction under. s. 115 in
any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other
proceedings instituted before !st August, 1978 ;
(iii) The High Court has jurisdiction under s. 115 in respect of
cases, arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valua-
tion, decided by the District Court.
(iv) A revision proceeding pending immediately before !st August, F.
1978 of the nature in which a District Court would exercise re-
visional power under s. 115 as amended by the Amendment Act, 1978
if pending :
(a) in the District Court, would be decided by that court as if the
Amendment Act of 1978 were in force at all material times ;
(b) in the High Court, would be decided by the High Court as
if the Amendment Act of 1978 had not come into force .
. The submissions made by learned counsel before us cover a wide·
field, but in the main, two questions arise :
(!) Whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction a.
'lmder s. 115, Code of Civil Procedure in respect of an order of the
District Court under s. 115 disposing of a revision petition ?
38 SUPREME COURT REJ>OH~ [1980] -~ S.G.R.

A (2) Whether the High Court possesses 1evi;ional jurisdicti<>n
'
under s. 115 against an order of the District Cou1t under s. 25, Prn ·
-{
vincial Small Cause Courts Act disposing of a revision petition ?

As regards the first question, it will be noticed that a revisional
power was formerly entrusted exclusively to the highest court in the
,B state, the High Court. The State amendments now divided it bet-
ween the High Court and the District Court. The amendment effect
by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 conferred exclusive
jurisdiction under s. 115 in the High Court in cases arising out of
original suits of the value of Rs. 20,000/- and above, and in other

c
cases the revisional jurisdiction was concurrently shared between
the High Court and the District Court. It was apparently supposed
+
that the average litigant would prefer the less expensive and more con-
venient forum of the District Court. The measure, it seems, did
not bring the relief expected, and the State Legislature found it neces-
sary, by enacting the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 to
make a clearcut division of jurisdiction between the High Court
,D and the District Court, resulting in exclusive revisional jurisdiction
to the High Court in cases arising out of original suits of the value
of Rs. 20,000/- and above, and exclusive jurisdiction under s. 115
to the District Court in other cases. There was a sharp bifurcation of
revisional jurisdiction, and the High Court and District Court now
enjoyed mutually exclusive revisional powers. A controversy arose
E whether a revisional order under s. 115 made by the District Court
was final or was itself amendable to the revisional power of the High
Court under the same section. The point was considered by a
full Bench of the High Court in Har Parasad Singh and others v.
Ram Swarup and others(l) and it was held that no such revision
petition was maintainable before tile High Court. Further State
amendments were made to s. 115 without materially disturbing the
division of power. But a proviso added to s. 115 by the U.P. Civil
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973, followed by the U.P. President's Acts
(Re-enactment with Modifications) Act, 1974 stated :
"Provided that in respect of cases decided before the
.. G 20th day of September,-1972, and also all cases arising out
of original suits of any valuation decided by the District
Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make
an order under this section."

The proviso reopened the controversy whether a rev1s1on petition
lay to the High Conrt against a revisional order passed by the Dis-
- (I) A. L R. 1973, Allahabad, 390.
VJSHESH KUMAR v. SHANTI PRASAD (Pathak, J.)

t!rict Court, and on a difference of opinion between two learned A
judges a third learned judge of the Allahabad High Court now held
inPhool Wati and othersv. Gur Sahai (I) that a revision petition would
' lie.

The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, however,
superseded the scheme of bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction with B
-effect from !st February, 1977 and, with certain modification
the position reverted to what it was under the original s. 115.
In otr.er words, the entire sphere of revisional jurisdiction was res-
1
tored to the High Court, no such power being now vested in the
District Court. An exception was made where a revision petition
·.under s. 115 hadi been admitted, after preliminary hearing, before Ist c
February, 1977; it would continue to be governed bys. 115 as it stood
-before that date. The situation lasted only briefly, for on !st August,
1978 the Code of Civil Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act,
1978 substantially restored the status quo ante.

The controversy whether it is open to the High Court to exercise D
·revisional power in respect of a revisional order under s. 115
of the District Court presents little difficulty. The basis for deter-
mining that question flows from the principle incorporated in the
bifurcation of the revisional jurisdiction, And legislative history
comes to our aid. The consistent object behind the successive amend-
ments was to divide the work load of revision petitions between E
the High Court and the District Court aP.d decentralise that jurisdic-
tion. That purpose was s0ught to be achieved by classifying all cases
into two mutually exclusive categories depending on the valuation
of the suit out of which they arose. In determining whether the
Legislature intended a further revision petition to the High Court,
regard must be had to the principle that the construction given to a F
statute should be such as would advance the object of the legislation
and suppress the mischief sought to be cured by it. it seems to us
that to recognise a revisional power in the High Court over a re-
visional order passed by the District Jur!ge would plainly defeat the.
object of the legislative scheme. The fr.tent behind the bifurcation
G
-of jurisdiction-to reduce the number of revision petitions filed in
the High Court-would be frustrated. The scheme would, in large
measure, lose its meaning. If a revision petition is permitted to
the High Court- against the revisional order of the District Court
arising out of a suit of a value less than Rs. 20,000/-, a fundamental
-contradiction would be allowed to invade and destroy the division of
B
revisional power between the High Court and the District Court, for
(!) A.l.R. 1975 Allahabad 262.
40 SUPREME COURT REPOR rs [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A the High Court would then enjoy jurisdictional power in respect
of an order arising out of a suit of a valuation below Rs. 20,000/-.
That was never intended at all.

In Phoolwati (supra), considerable importance was attached to
the proviso introduced in s. 115 by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment
B Act, 1973. The proviso declared that "in respect of. ....... aO
I
cases arising out of original suils of any valuation decided by the Dis-
trict Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an
order under this section". What it said was that no matter what the

c
valuation of the original suit, be it Rs. 20,000/- and above or below
Rs. 20,000/-, if a case arising out of such suit was decided by the Dis-
trict Court, the case would be amenable to the revisional power of
+
the High Court We are already familiar with the category of case~
where the High Court wields revisional jurisdiction over cases arising
out of original suits of a value of Rs. 20,000/- or more. That is the
category already covered by the substantive provision in s. 115. The
other category covered by the proviso would include those instances,
D
for example where an original suit although of a value making
it triable by a court subordinate is transferred to the District Court
for trial. Orders passed by the District Court in such a suit could
constitute a case decided by it and amenable to the revisional power
of the High Court. What must be noted is that the test incorporated
E in the proviso is the fact that the case has been decided by the Dis-
trict Court. The valuation of the suit is irrelevant. But the proviso
cannot be construed to include the case of a revisional order passed
by the District Court for that would be in direct conflict with the
fundamental structure itself of s. 115 evidencing that a mutually
exclusive jurisdiction has been assigned to the High Court and
f the District Court within its terms. A proviso cannot be permitted
by construction to defeat the basic intent expressed in the substantive
provision. Har Prasad Singh (supra) and Phoolwati (supra) were
considered by a Full Bench of the High Court in M/s Jupiter Funt!
(Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Dlesh Dayal and others (1) and in our judg-
ment the High Court rightly laid down there that the phrase "case
G arising out of an original suit" occurring in s. 115 does not cover
orders passed in revision.

We are of opinion on the first question that the High Court
..,
is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under s. 115, Code of Civil
Procedure- over a revisional order made by the District Court unde•
B that section.
(I) A. I. R. 1979 All. 218.
VISHESH KUMAR v. SHANTI PRASAD (Pathak, J.) 41

We shall now advert to the second question, whether a revisional A
order of the District Court under s. 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts
Act, is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Co urt
under s. 1!5, Code of Civil Procedure. Section 25 originally provided :
"25. The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself
that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court
B
of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case
and pass such order with:respect thereto as it thinks fit."

Section 25 was amended in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh
from time to time. The first amendment substituted the District
Judge for the High Court, so that the District Judge became the re-
pository of revisional power instead of the High Court. A further c
amendment, made in 1972, added a proviso, which declared that in
relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional
District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes
the power of revision under s. 25 would vest in the High Court.
The question before us arises in those cases only where the Dis- D
trict Judge has exercised revisional power under s. 25. Is an order
so made open to revision by the High Court under s. 115, Code of
Civil Procedure ? An examination of the several provisions of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act indicates that it is a self-sufficient
code so far as the present enquiry is concerned. For the purpose of
correcting decrees or orders made by a Court of Small Causes the E
Act provides for an appeal and a revision in cases falling under s. 24
ands. 25 respectively, Cases in which the District Judge and the High
Court respectively exercise revisional power, revisional powers are
specifically mentioned. · A complete set of superior remedies has been
incorporated in the Act. Moreover, s. 27 of the Act provides :
"27. Finality of decrees and orde•s.-Save as provided by
.,..
this Act, a decree or order made under the foregoing
provisions of this Act by a Court of Small Causes shall
be final."

The Legislature clearly intended that a decree or order made by a
G
Court of Small Causes should be final subject only to correction
by the remedies provided under the Provincial Small Cause Courts
Act. It is a point for consideration that had s. 25, in its application
to the State of Uttar Pradesh' continued in its original form the
I:Iigh Court would have exercised the revisional power under
s. 25, and no question could have arisen of invoking the revi- If
sional power of the High Court under s. 115 of the Code. All
the indications point to the conclusion that a case falling within the
1 4-189SC!/80
42 SUPREME COUl>.T REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was never intended to be subject
to the remedies provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, By way
of abundant caution s. 7 of the Code made express provision barring
the application of ss. 96 to 112 and 115 of the Code to courts cons-
tituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, Section 7
of the Code merely embodies the general principle against resort to
B remedies outside the Provincial Small Cause CourtsAct. Although the
court of the District Judge is not a court constituted under the Act
the general principle continues to take effect. No change in
the principle was brought about merely because revisional power
under s. 25, before the proviso was added, was now entrusted to the
c District Judge. It must be remembered that the legislative intention
behind the amendment was to relieve the High Court of the burdea
of excercising revisional jurisdiction in respect of cases decided under
the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. We are of firm opinion
that the central principle continues to hold, notwithstanding the
amendment effected in s. 25, that the hierarchy of 1emedies enacted
D in the Provincial Small Cause Court Act represents a complete
and final order of remedies, and it is not possible to proceed outside
the Act to avail of a superior remedy provided by another statute.

These considerations were apparently not present before the High
Court of Allahabad when it held in Bimla Rani Kohli v. M/s. Bandu
E Motor Finance (P) Ltd.(l) tha(a revisional order of the District Judge
under s. 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act could be revised by
the High Court under s. 115, Code.of Civil Procedure. In our opinion,
the view taken by the High Court is not correct.

Accordingly, we hold that an order passed under s. 25, Provin-
F cial Small Cause Courts Act by a District Court is not amenable to the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Com t under s. 115, Code of Civil
Procedure.

In Civil Appeal No. 2844 of 1979, S.L.P. No. 9104 of 1979,
S.L.P. No. 9142 of 1979 and S.L.P. No. 9752 of 1979, the High
G
Court has rejected revision petitions f.led under s. 115, Code of Civil
Procedure, against the revisional orders of the District Court under s.
25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. On the opinion reached by
us that a revision petition under s. 115 is not maintainable against
a revisional order under s. 25, the appeal and the associated special
B leave petitions must be dismissed.

(1) A.J.R. 1972 All. 242.
VISHESH KUMAR v. SHANTI PRASAD (Pathak, J.) 43

S.L.P. No. 9031 of 1979 arises out of an application for an ad A
interim injunction made in a pending suit. Since then the suit has
been dismissed, and an appeal against the decree is pending. As the
suit itself has been disposed of, all proceedings for grant of interim
relief must be regarded as having lapsed. The Special Leave Peti-
tion has become infructuous and must be dismissed accordingly.
B .,1
It has been urged by the appellant in Vishesh r<:umar v. Shanti
Prasad (Civil Appeal No. 2844of1979) that in case this Court is of the
opinion that a revision petition under s. 115, Code of Civil Proceurde,
is not maintainable, the case should be remitted to the High Court
for consideration as a petition under tArticle 227 of the Constitution.
We are unable to accept that prayer. A revision petition under s.115 c
is a separate and distinct proceeding from a petition under Article 227
-Of the Constitution, and one cannot be idnetified with the other.
In the result, the appeal and the special leave petitions are dis-
missed. There will be no order as to cost.

P.B .. R. Appeal and Petition~ dismissed.

f

)__