https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292802 The U.P. amended Section 115 CPC was treated as creating separate and mutually exclusive revisional spheres for the High Court and the District Court, so revision to the High Court remained barred in cases covered by the statutory valuation threshold. The later Supreme Court decision in Qamaruddin was not read as overruling the earlier Full Bench line because it did not notice the U.P. amendment or the controlling prior authorities. On Article 226, writ jurisdiction was described as exceptional: it is not ordinarily available against district court appellate or revisional orders, but may still lie where the impugned order violates fundamental legal principles and causes substantial injustice; mandamus against a private party requires a statutory public duty. en-us Fri, 25 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2021 11:42:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292802 The U.P. amended Section 115 CPC was treated as creating separate and mutually exclusive revisional spheres for the High Court and the District Court, so revision to the High Court remained barred in cases covered by the statutory valuation threshold. The later Supreme Court decision in Qamaruddin was not read as overruling the earlier Full Bench line because it did not notice the U.P. amendment or the controlling prior authorities. On Article 226, writ jurisdiction was described as exceptional: it is not ordinarily available against district court appellate or revisional orders, but may still lie where the impugned order violates fundamental legal principles and causes substantial injustice; mandamus against a private party requires a statutory public duty. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292802