S. 115 – Revision - Scope and applicability of U.P. Ordinance No. 25 of 2003 and 26 of 2003 by which second proviso has been added to sub-section 3 of the s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure

S. 115 – Revision - Scope and applicability of  U.P. Ordinance No. 25 of 2003 and 26 of 2003 by which second proviso has been added to sub-section 3 of the s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

according to learned Standing counsel these two ordinances have been incorporated in s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Civil Procedure Code (U.P. Amendment) Act, 2003 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003). The said amendment has received the assent of the President on 19th December 2003 and the amended Act has been published in the U.P. gazette Extra Part I, section (Ka), dated 20th December 2003.  A plain reading of the proviso added by U.P. Amendment added in sub section 3 of s. 115 reveals that an order of the subordinate court may be set aside under revisional jurisdiction apart from other grounds, on the ground that if it is allowed to stand would occasion to failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. The amendment done in sub-section of s. 115 cannot be read in a piecemeal but the entire section should be read as a whole. The U.P. Amendment does not affect the conditions provided by sub-section 1 of s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The statement of object and reason of Civil Procedure Code U.P. Amendment Act 2003 reveals that the legislatures had amended s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to empower the District Judge to revise the orders of courts subordinate to them arising out of original suits of the valuation up to Rs. 5,00,000/-.  Thus the purpose of said amendment was to confer power on the District Judges to entertain the revision relating to the properties having evaluation up to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs). U.P. amendment further adds certain additional grounds as obvious from the plain reading of Sub-Section 2, 3 and 4 of s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interference under the revisional jurisdiction.  While considering the s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, sub-section 1, 2, 3 and 4 should be read as a whole and not in isolation. Some of the words which place dominant role while considering the power conferred by s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are "Case decided, order made in favour of the party and order deciding an issue."  It has been further held by Apex Court that s. 115 makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether order in favour of party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is "Yes" then revision shall be maintainable. But on contrary if the answer is "No" then the revision shall not be maintainable. Therefore, in case an order does not finally decide the lis, the revision shall not be maintainable. For convenience relevant portion from the judgement of Shiv Shakti is reproduced as under:-  "19. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statue is the determinative factor of legislative intent. Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to referents. The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature enacting it. (See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse) The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As observed in Crawford V. Spooner courts cannot aid the legislatures' defective phrasing of an Act, Court cannot add or meant, and by construction make up deficiencies which are left there. (See State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai nathjibhai Patel) It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. [See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) ltd.] Rules of interpretation do not permit courts to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of a doubtful meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. (Per Lord Loreburn, L.C. in Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans, quoted in Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah.) . A plain reading of s.115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is "yes" then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is "no" then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is interim in nature, cannot be the subject-matter of revision u/s. 115."  In the case reported in 2006 (24) LCD 452, Haider Abbas V. Additional District Judge, a Division Bench of this Court after considering various Apex Court judgments held that meaning assigned to the word or phrases in the Statute should not be construed otherwise than what is reflected from its plain reading. It has been further held by the Division Bench of this court that an explanation given in the section of a statute are being provided to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act to clarify the vagueness and to provide additional support to the dominant object of the act or provision in question. Explanation cannot change in any way or may interfere with the enactment or any part thereof. Accordingly, also effect of sub-section 1 of s.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be diluted.

Case Law:
Mohd. Murtaza @ Pahari v. Addl. District & Session Judge Court No. 1 Hardoi And Ors;

Citation:
2014 (2) ACR 190