Orissa High Court
Sanjay Kumar Naik And Others vs Abdul Wahid And Others .... Opposite ... on 10 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRP No.31 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure)
Sanjay Kumar Naik and others .... Petitioners
-versus-
Abdul Wahid and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 10.11.2025 / date of judgment : 10.11.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been
filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11 in the suit vide C.S No.56
of 2024 pending in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Jharsuguda) against the Opposite Parties(plaintiffs in the suit vide C.S
No.56 of 2024) challenging an order of rejection to their petition dated
09.08.2024 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 passed on dated
09.08.2024 in C.S No.56 of 2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Jharsuguda.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners(defendant nos.9
to 11) and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties(plaintiffs).
3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) submitted that, this revision (arising
out of the suit vide C.S No.56 of 2024 value at Rs.60,000/-) is not
entertainable before this Court, i.e., before the High Court.
According to him(learned counsel for the petitioners), the revision
has been valued at Rs.60,000/-(rupees sixty thousand) and in view of the
amendment to Section 115 of the C.P.C.(Orissa Amendment) made
through Orissa Gazette Ext. No.1785 dated 02.11.2010(w.e.f.
11.11.2010) Notification No.11730, Legis. Dated 2nd November, 2010,
when the value of the civil revision arising out of the suit or proceeding
is less than rupees five lakhs, then, the revision arising out of the
impugned order passed in that suit or proceeding is not entertainable
before the High Court on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, because,
according to the above Orissa Amendment to Section 115 of the C.P.C.,
1908, any civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. like this revision
at hand arising out of the suit or proceeding having its value not
exceeding five lakhs rupees is not maintainable before the High Court, as
the revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. before the High Court is
maintainable arising out of a suit or proceeding, only where, the value of
such suit or proceeding exceeds five lakhs rupees.
The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties(plaintiffs) did not
dispute to the aforesaid Orissa Amendment to the Section 115 of the
C.P.C. w.e.f. 11.11.2010.
4. So, by taking the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels of
both the sides, the value of the suit (from which, this revision has arisen)
and the Orissa Amendment of Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 w.e.f.
11.11.2010 into account, it is held that, this revision filed by the
petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) is not entertainable before this Court,
i.e., before the High Court, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the
value of the suit, from which, this revision has arisen is Rs.60,000/-
(rupees sixty thousand), which is much less than rupees five lakhs and
the revision against the impugned order was entertainable before the
jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the learned District Judge,
Jharsuguda instead of this Court.
5. When, it is held that, this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.
filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) is not entertainable before
this Court on the ground of valuation of the suit, from which, this
revision has arisen for the reasons assigned above and the same was
entertainable before the learned District Judge, Jharsuguda, then at this
juncture, the ends of justice shall bestly be served, if this revision filed by
the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) will be disposed of finally without
entering into the merits of this revision giving liberty to the
petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) for filing of the same before the
jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the court of learned District
Judge, Jharsuguda challenging the impugned order.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid observations, this revision filed by the
petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) is disposed of finally giving liberty to
the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) to file this revision challenging the
impugned order before the jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the
learned District Judge, Jharsuguda in the District of Jharsuguda annexing
the certified copy of this judgment within a month of this judgment and
in case of filing of revision by the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11), the
learned District Judge, Jharsuguda, learned District Judge, Jharsuguda
shall entertain the same without questioning about the limitation in view
of the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, as
they (petitioners, defendant nos.9 to 11) had approached the wrong
forum, i.e., this Court bonafidely and shall dispose of the same as per law
on merit as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of being
heard to the parties.
7. Certified copy of the impugned judgment be returned to the
petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) substituting the same for filing of
revision before the jurisdictional revisional court.
8. Parties are directed to keep the matter as it is in status quo until the
approach of the petitioners(defendant nos.9 to 11) to the jurisdictional
revisional court.
9. As such, this civil revision filed by the petitioners(defendant nos.9
to 11) is disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 10th of November, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
