Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision petition filed by the defendants (petitioners) challenging the order of the 31st Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated 4.12.2002, rejecting their applications (IA 3 and IA 5 to 7) to recall or review an earlier order dated 9.11.1999. The earlier order had allowed the plaintiff (respondent) to pay the deficit court fee on the prayer for recovery of possession in a suit for specific performance. The defendants argued that the trial court erred in rejecting their applications. The High Court, however, held that the order allowing payment of deficit court fee is an interlocutory order which does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Such an order is not a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Interlocutory Order - Revision - Section 115 CPC - The order allowing payment of deficit court fee is an interlocutory order which does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Such an order is not amenable to revision under Section 115 CPC as it does not fall within the ambit of 'case decided' which has the effect of finally disposing of the suit or proceeding. (Para 4)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Recall of Order - Review - The trial court rejected the applications for recall or review of the order dated 9.11.1999 allowing the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee. The High Court held that the order allowing deficit court fee is an interlocutory order and the revision against the rejection of recall/review is not maintainable. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the trial court allowing the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee on the prayer for recovery of possession is an interlocutory order and whether the revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against such an order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that the order allowing payment of deficit court fee is an interlocutory order and the revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable.
Law Points
- Interlocutory order
- Deficit court fee
- Recall of order
- Review
- Revision under Section 115 CPC
- Civil Procedure Code
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (07) 13
Civil Revision Petition 1415 / 2004
Sri M Aswathanarayana Reddy (for petitioners), Sri Navkesh Batra (for R1), Sri Ashok B Patil (for R2,3,5 & 8), M/s Vagdevi Assts. (for R6-7)
Sri L Premkishore, Sri L Shailesh, Smt K Shashirekha, Aditya, Smt D Shakunthala, S Shambhavi, Smt B Lalitha, Smt Sarala
M/s Revajeethu Builders Developers, M/s Narayanaswamy & Sons, Sri B M Narayanaswamy, Sri N Vishwanath, Sri N Venkatesh, Sri G Ananthaswamy, Sri G Prabhakara, Sri G Kumaraswamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition challenging the order of the trial court rejecting applications for recall or review of an order allowing payment of deficit court fee.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (defendants) sought to set aside the order dated 4.12.2002 passed on IA 3 and IA 5 to 7 in OS 2265/1996 by the 31st Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
Filing Reason
The defendants challenged the trial court's rejection of their applications to recall or review the order dated 9.11.1999 allowing the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had passed an order on 9.11.1999 allowing the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee on the prayer for recovery of possession. The defendants filed applications to recall or review that order, which were rejected on 4.12.2002.
Issues
Whether the order allowing payment of deficit court fee is an interlocutory order?
Whether the revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against such an order?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners (defendants) argued that the trial court erred in rejecting their applications for recall or review of the order dated 9.11.1999.
The respondents (plaintiff) contended that the order allowing deficit court fee is an interlocutory order and the revision is not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
An order allowing payment of deficit court fee is an interlocutory order which does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Such an order is not a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 CPC, and therefore, a revision petition against such an order is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
This is a defendants appeal (i.e., defendants 8, 9 & 11-16) challenging the order of rejecting their applications to recall the order dated 9.11.1999 or review the said order allowing the plaintiff/1st respondent herein to pay the deficit court fee on the prayer for recovery of possession.
The order allowing the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee is an interlocutory order which does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Such an order is not amenable to revision under Section 115 CPC.
Procedural History
The suit OS 2265/1996 was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance. On 9.11.1999, the trial court allowed the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee on the prayer for recovery of possession. The defendants filed IA 3 and IA 5 to 7 seeking recall or review of that order, which were rejected on 4.12.2002. The defendants then filed the present civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115
