TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the 'Code') lies to the High Court as against an order made by a civil court in an appeal preferred under section 37. If so, whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, such a remedy by way of revision is an alternate and efficacious remedy or not. 5. Mr. K. Parasaran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the right of second appeal is speci- fically taken away under section 37(2). Therefore, by implication, it should be held that even a revision is not maintainable under section 115 of the Act. He pointed out that under section 5 of the Act, there is a bar against judicial intervention by any judicial authority, unless the same is specifically provided under Part I of the Act. It is his contention that since a revision is not specifically provided for and the Code not being made applicable to proceedings arising under the Act, a revision to the High Court does not lie. Therefore, he contends that the appellant's only remedy is to approach this Court by way of this appeal. He sought to take support from a decision of the Privy Council in the case of R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar (supra) also does not apply to the facts of the present appeal before us. In the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar (supra), this Court noticed that the trial court had granted a decree for possession of certain rooms in the petition scheduled premises which order of eviction was confirmed by the Appellate Court on the ground of equity. Against the said judgment of the appellate court, the aggrieved party had preferred a revision petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed by a Single Judge. Having suffered an adverse order in the revision, the aggrieved party then filed a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the very same appellate order which was confirmed in revision. On those facts, this Court held that a writ petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court when the party had already chosen the remedy of filing a revision before the High Court under section 115 of the Code. In these circumstances, this Court held that if there are two modes for invoking jurisdiction of the High Court and one of those modes having been chosen and exhausted, it would not be proper for the Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s submission of the learned counsel. It is true that in the present Act application of the code is not specifically provided for but what is to be noted is : Is there an express prohibition against the application of the Code to a proceeding arising out of the Act before a civil court? We find no such specific exclusion of the Code in the present Act. When there is no express exclusion, we cannot by inference hold that the code is not applicable. 11. It has been held by this Court in more than one cases that the jurisdiction of the civil court to which a right to decide a lis between the parties has been conferred can only be taken by a statute in specific terms and such exclusion of right cannot be easily inferred because there is always a strong presumption that the civil courts have the jurisdiction to decide all questions of civil nature, therefore, if at all there has to be an inference, the same should be in favour of the jurisdiction of the court rather than the exclusion of such jurisdiction and there being no such exclusion of the Code in specific terms except to the extent stated in section 37(2), we cannot draw an inference that merely because the Act has not provided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar (supra) wherein it is noticed that this Court had entertained an appeal directly against a judgment and decree of a trial court by passing the High Court. It is true that the power of this Court to entertain an appeal directly is not taken away merely because another remedy is available but then the question is, should this Court encourage litigants to indulge in hop, skip and jump to reach this Court either for the reason that the remedy from this Court would be quick or more efficacious? The answer, in our opinion, should be no. The judgment of this Court in Central Coal Fields Ltd. case (supra) does not, in any way, take a contra view from what is expressed by us hereinabove. In that case, because of the peculiar fact-situation, this Court entertained an appeal without the party; first appreciating the High Court but then it should be noticed that this Court did not entertain the appeal to decide the same itself, it did so to refer the matter to arbitration proceedings and when an award made by the learned arbitrator was acceptable to all parties, then the same was made a rule of this Court. Such is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on petition, therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we direct the appellant to first approach the High Court. For the said reasons, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. We, however, make it clear that the appellant should present a revision petition within 30 days from today, the same will be entertained by the High Court without going into the question of limitation, if any. Dharmadhikari, J. - I am in respectful agreement with the judgment of the learned brother N. Santosh Hegde, J. I would like to add some additional reasons to agree with his conclusion. Power conferred on the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 over all subordinate courts within its jurisdiction is a supervisory power and has been distinguished from its power of appeal to correct errors of fact and law. The power of revision under section 115 being in the nature of power of superintendence to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction cannot be readily inferred to have been excluded by provisions of a special Act, unless such exclusion is clearly expressed in that Act. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 whi....