Madhya Pradesh High Court
CR/545/2021 of RADHESHYAM Vs KHWAJA HUSAIN on 12 July 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT I N D O R E BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWALON THE 27[th] OF OCTOBER, 2023
CIVIL REVISION No. 545 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
RADHESHYAM S/O BABULAL VIJAYVARGIYA, AGED ABOUT 75YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS MANASA,TEHSIL MANASA(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ROHIT KUMAR MANGAL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
AND
KHWAJA HUSAIN S/O GHASIJI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,OCCUPATION: NIL MANASA,TEHSIL MANASA (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI SATISH JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
This revision coming on for orders this day, the courtpassed the following:
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finallyat motion stage.
Heard on objection raised by respondents with respect tomaintainability of revision under Section 115 of Code of CivilProcedure, 1908.
(2) This civil revision has been filed under Section 115 of CivilProcedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') by which the petitioner ischallenging the order dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed inMJC No.09 of 1987 passed by First Civil Judge, Manasa, District - Neemuch (MP), whereby execution proceedings were dismissedwithout satisfaction by wrongly appreciating the judgments ofHon'ble Supreme Court and High Court.
Page 1 of 2
(3) Learned counsel for the respondent relying upon thejudgments of Johrabi and Others vs. Jageshwar and Others,Toran Singh vs. Imrat Singh and Others and Laluram vs. MPGrihnirman Mandal and also referring to Section 115 of CPCsubmits that in the instant case, civil revision is not maintainable,as no proceedings are pending before the Courts below. Theimpugned order has finally terminated the proceedings and noproceedings are pending before the executing court, therefore,revision under Section 115 of CPC is not maintainable.
(4) Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner after referringto Section 115 of CPC including the judgments relied upon areSangita Sunil Bhardiya vs. Rajendra Babulal Sarnot, JhansiOral Tollway Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bank of India and Others, IsmailHussain Fatmi vs. Radheshyam and Roshanlal Tiwari andOthers vs. Pannalal Tiwari and Others submits that theimpugned order is not of interim nature, instead, it has finallydecided the proceedings, therefore, revision under Section 115 ofCPC is maintainable only if order is interim in nature, thenrevision is not maintainable. It is also urged that against theimpugned order, no appeal is provided under the above mentionedorder and therefore, revision is maintainable under the CPC.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aboveprovision is not applicable because the impugned order is not in interim nature.
(6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and haveperused the records of the case.
(7) A perusal of the record and the impugned order dated12.11.2021 reveals that vide above order the executionproceedings have been closed and therefore, this final order is notan interim order, therefore, in view of the law laid down in theaforesaid cases, this revision petition is maintainable and hence theobjection raised by the respondent counsel is disallowed.
(8) Record of MJC No.09/1987 pending before the First CivilJudge, Junior Division, Manasa, District-Neemuch be called for.
Arun/-
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE
Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF ARUN MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=d5b56e3de75e7828ced1a96bc4f01804c3ea1f0a5497e4019e41c0a82cbabbf0, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=192F2423E128DC1CC004DD8FF22B3F2FFC3D1EF75981FCBEF3B2B76823F270F7, cn=ARUN NAIR NAIRDate: 2023.10.29 19:57:18 +05'30'
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…