1991 PLP 1867 (MLD)

Subsections (1) and (2) of S.115 of C.P.C. as amended by Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 empower the District Court to entertain, hear and dispose of any revision which the High Court under subsection (1) is competent to entertain and adjudicate upon, without making any distinction between the revision arising out of a suit brought under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act or out of any other suit. Despite a direction given to a litigant to make a choice between the two revisional forums, the revisions arising out of all kinds of suits are maintainable and are being instituted in the District Courts subject to the limits of their pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed for appeals, calculated on the value of the subject-matter of the suit and it is not being left to the choice of the litigants. Even in a suit brought under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, half of the court- fee is payable and jurisdictional value on the basis of value of the subject-matter of the suit has to be calculated. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

S. 15

Provision of S.15, C.P.C. enjoins a suitor to institute his suit in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it which prevents the overcrowding in the Courts of higher grade or of superior jurisdiction like the High Court beside attaining uniformity

Principle embodied in S.15, C.P.C., strictly speaking, is a rule of propriety than a matter of legal exigency but it is not possible to make any departure from it unless there are very strong reasons therefor. Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 4-9-1991, by which the suit of the respondent brought under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed against the petitioner in respect of the disputed property.

2. The very first question involved in this revision petition is its maintainability in this Court under section 115, C.P.C. The High Court as well as the District Court both are competent to hear the revision arising out of a suit. The only limitation on the latter is that the value of the subject-matter of the revision should not exceed the limit of its pecuniary jurisdiction for the purpose of appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner, when called upon to let this Court know as to why he brought the civil revision direct to this Court after by-passing the District Court, has submitted that the amendment of section 115, C.P.C. introduced by Ordinance XII of 1972, did not contemplate the filing of revision, arising out of a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, in the District Court because in such like suits there is no question of the value of the subject matter which is a necessary condition for filing a revision before that Court under section 115(2) C.P.C. According to the learned counsel, even otherwise it is a discretion of the petitioner to choose between the two forums available to him i.e. the High Court and the District Court and the petitioner in this case chooses the first one. 2-A. Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (Ordinance XII, of 1972) added subsection (2) to section 115 which was renumbered as subsection (1). Subsections (2) and (3) for the convenience of reference are reproduced hereunder:-- (2) "The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject-matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court. (3) If any application under subsection (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them".

3. These subsections empower the District Court to entertain, hear and dispose of any revision which the High Court under subsection (1) is competent to entertain and adjudicate upon, without making any distinction between the revision arising out of a suit brought under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act or out of any other suit. Despite a direction given to a litigant to make a choice between the two revisional forums, the revisions arising out of all kinds of suits are maintainable and are being instituted in the District Courts subject to the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed for appeals, calculated on the value of the subject-matter of the suit and it is not being left to the choice of the litigants. Even in a suit brought under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, half of the court-fee is payable and jurisdictional value on the basis of value of the subject-matter of the suit has to be calculated and has been calculated and specified in the plaint of the suit giving rise to this revision. It is Rs.6,000 only and obviously within the jurisdictional competence of the District Court as its upper pecuniary limit, for the time being, is Rs.2,00,

000. This is being done on the principle as embodied in section 15 of the C.P.C. which enjoins a suitor to institute his suit in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. The reason behind this view is to prevent the overcrowding in the Courts of higher grade or of superior jurisdiction like the High Court, besides attaining uniformity. In other words, strictly speaking, it is a rule of propriety than a matter of legal exigency but it is not possible to make any departure from it unless there are very strong reasons therefor and petitioner's counsel has indicated none.

4. For various reasons stated above, this revision petition being not maintainable in this Court, should be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner for presentation to the proper forum after obtaining its photostat for record. M.BA./M-3065/L Order accordingly.