Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dulal Roy vs Krushnapada Mandal And Others .... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9775 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9775 Ori
Judgement Date : 10 November, 2025

Orissa High Court

Dulal Roy vs Krushnapada Mandal And Others .... ... on 10 November, 2025

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                            CRP No.42 of 2024

                    (In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the Code of
                  Civil Procedure)

                   Dulal Roy                                  ....            Petitioner

                                                   -versus-
                   Krushnapada Mandal and others              ....      Opposite Parties


                  Appeared in this case:-
                        For Petitioner         :               Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate

                   For Opposite Parties        :              Mr. N.K. Sahu, 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 petitioner(JDR in Execution Case No.03 of 2023 pending in

the court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kendrapara) against

the Opposite Parties(DHRs in the suit vide Execution Case No.03 of

2023) challenging an order of rejection to their petition dated 18.09.2024

under Order-21, Rule-97 read with Section 47(1) and 151 of the C.P.C.,

1908 passed on dated 26.07.2024 in Execution Case No.03 of 2023 by

the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kendrapara.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner(JDR) and

learned counsel for the Opposite Parties(DHRs).

3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Opposite

Party Nos.1 to 5(DHRs in Execution Case No.03 of 2023) contented that,

this revision (arising out of the Execution Case No.03 of 2023 from the

judgment and decree passed in the suit vide C.S. No.708 of 2015) is

valued at Rs.2,100/-, for which, this civil revision U/s.115 of the C.P.C.

filed by the petitioner is not entertainable before this Court, i.e., before

the High Court.

4. According to him(learned counsel for the Opposite Parties), the

Execution Case No.03 of 2023(from which, this revision has arisen), is

valued at Rs.2,100/-(rupees two thousand one hundred) 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 proceedings (from which this revision arises) is

less than rupees five lakhs, then, the revision arising out of the impugned

order is not entertainable before the High Court on the ground of

pecuniary jurisdiction, because, according to the above Orissa

Amendment of 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 any suit

or proceeding 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.

The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties(DHRs) did not

dispute to the aforesaid Orissa Amendment to the Section 115 of the

C.P.C. w.e.f. 11.11.2010.

5. So, by taking the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels of

both the sides, the value of the Execution Case No.03 of 2023 (from

which, the same had arisen) and the Orissa Amendment to 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 petitioner(JDR) 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, Execution Case No.03

of 2023 had arisen is Rs.2, 100/-(rupees two thousand one hundred),

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, Kendrapara instead of this

Court.

6. When, it is held that, this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.

filed by the petitioner(defendant) is not entertainable before this Court on

the ground of valuation of the suit, from which, the Execution Case

No.03 of 2023 had arisen, for the reasons assigned above and the same

was entertainable before the learned District Judge, Kendrapara, then at

this juncture, the ends of justice shall bestly be served, if this revision

filed by the petitioner(JDR) will be disposed of finally without entering

into the merits of this revision giving liberty to the petitioner(JDR) for

filing of the same before the jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before

the court of learned District Judge, Kendrapara challenging the impugned

order.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid observations, this revision filed by the

petitioner(JDR) is disposed of finally giving liberty to the

petitioner(JDR) to file revision challenging the impugned order before

the jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the learned District Judge,

Kendrapara in the District of Kendrapara annexing the certified copy of

this judgment within a month of this judgment and in case of filing of

revision by the petitioner(JDR), the learned District Judge, Kendrapara

shall entertain the same without questioning about the limitation in view

of the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, as he

(petitioner, JDR) 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.

8. As such, this civil revision filed by the petitioner(JDR) is disposed

of finally.

9. Certified copy of the impugned judgment be returned to the

petitioner(JDR) substituting the same for filing of revision before the

jurisdictional revisional court.

10. Parties are directed to keep the matter as it is in status quo for a

period of one month hence, as the petitioner has been directed to file the

revision before the learned District Judge, Kendrapara within a period of

one month from the date of the judgment of this revision.

( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 10th of November, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.

Designation: Personal Assistant

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter