Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Citation: AIR 2005 MP 40.
Date of Judgement: 25/08/2004.
Petitioner: Om Prakash and ors.
Respondent: Dwarka Prasad and anr.
Bench:
- Justice S.S. Jha.
- Justice A. Gohil.
Statutes Referred:
- Code of Civil Procedure.
Cases Referred:
- Food Corporation of India vs. Munnilal, 2003 (2) MPLJ 290: AIR 2003 Madh Pra 66.
- Shivkumar vs. Ramkatori, 1977 LJL 33.
- Reliable Water Supply Service of India v. Union of India (1971 SC 2183).
- Gauri Shankar v. Firm Dulichand Laxminarayan (AIR 1959 Madh Pra 188).
- Ram Avtar v. Ram Dhani (AIR 1997 SC 107) : (1997 All LJ 1908).
- Lachhman Dass v. Santokh Singh ((1995) 4 SCC 201).
- Munshi Singh v. Tula Ram (1980 MPLJ SN 61).
- U.D. Patel and Company v. C.M. Milligam and Clarke Ltd., AIR 1956 Bombay 598.
- Bahori v. Vidya Ram (AIR 1978 Allahabad 299).
- Narmadabai Narayanshet v. Hidayatalli Saheballi (AIR 1949 Bombay 115).
- Bar Council of India New Delhi v. Manikan Tiwari (AIR 1983 Allahabad 357).
- Loknath Maharana v. Dr A.B. Mohantil, (AIR 1977 Orissa 182).
Facts:
- The petitioners filed a revision petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
- Following this, the petitioners filed an application stating that the revision petition filed earlier must be converted into and considered as an appeal.
Issue:
- Whether a revision can be converted into an appeal and vice-versa?
The contention by Petitioner:
- The revision must be converted into a miscellaneous appeal under Order Rule XIII, Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court had allowed the conversion of appeal into revision and revision into appeal in quite a few cases.
- While delivering the judgement in Food Corporation of India (supra), the Court ignored the principle of stare decisis. The judgement has not laid down the correct law.
The contention by the Respondent:
- The scope of the revision and the scope of the appeal is entirely different. Therefore, the application and the revision must be rejected.
- The nature and scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court are different from the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.
- If an impugned order is revisable, it cannot be converted into an appeal as there is no presentation of appeal in the eyes of the law.
- The revision filed was not maintainable.
Obiter Dicta:
- The Courts had been permitting the conversion of revision petitions into appeals and vice versa.
· To meet the ends of justice, revision can be converted into appeal or appeal can be converted into revision while exercising the discretion and if the following norms are fulfilled, then normally the order of conversion of revision in to appeal or appeal into revision should be passed :
i. When revision is converted into second appeal, then before passing the order of conversion, it is to be considered whether substantial question of law arises in the said case; if no substantial question of law arises in the case, revision cannot be converted into second appeal.
ii. Revision can be converted into appeal if same is filed within time and there is no impediment of limitation. Limitation must be construed from the date of filing of the revision petition or appeal. If the revision or appeal so filed was within limitation, for conversion into appeal or revision, it is to be examined that the appeal or revision, as the case may be, so filed, on the date of institution, was within the limitation and if so, said permission can be granted.
iii. There is no period of limitation for applying such conversion, but while exercising the powers of conversion, the Court would keep in mind whether appeal or revision, as the case may be, had been instituted within the period prescribed for such proceedings.
- Correct law had not been laid down in Food Corporation of India (supra).
Judgement:
- Revision can be converted into a miscellaneous appeal.
- The office was directed to register the revision as a miscellaneous appeal and list it before the appropriate bench.
Rationale:
- The Court’s inherent powers permit the Court to pass orders as may be necessary for the purpose of justice.
- A rigid view that a revision cannot be converted into an appeal and vice versa would not be in the interest of justice.
- A litigant cannot be punished based on a technical error or mistake on the part of the counsel.
Conclusion:
- The Courts have the power to pass orders as may be necessary to ensure that justice is delivered. These powers are accompanied by reasonable discretion.
Prepared by Mihir Poojary.