Holding

The High Court correctly held that it has no revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC for suits valued below Rs 20,000, and the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered three Special Leave Petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court's refusal to entertain revisions under Section 115 of the CPC on the ground that Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 1978 bars such revisions when the original suit is valued below Rs 20,000. The Court examined the text, purpose and scheme of the amendment, concluding that the High Court's interpretation – that its revisional jurisdiction is limited to suits of Rs 20,000 or more and that lower‑value matters remain final at the District Court unless the decision is the first one on an original proceeding – is correct. Accordingly, the SLPs were dismissed. The judgment reaffirmed the principle of decentralising justice and limiting High Court interference in low‑value cases.

Issues considered

Whether Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 1978 excludes the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC for judgments/orders arising from suits valued less than Rs 20,000.
Whether the High Court correctly interpreted the phrase "cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings" in the amendment.
Whether the Special Leave Petitions filed against the High Court's order are maintainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 115
Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 1978s. 3

Subjects

revision jurisdictionSection 115 CPCUttar Pradesh Amendment Actspecial leave petitioncivil procedurejurisdictional limitsvalue of suithigh court jurisdictiondistrict courtdecentralisation of justice

Judgment

973

VISHNU AWATAR ETC. A
v.
SHIV AUTAR AND ORS.
May 2, 1980
[V. R. KRlsHNA IYER AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.) B
Code of Civil Proce4ure, 1908, Section 115-Revisory furisdiction uf the Bi11h
Court-Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (U.P.) Act, 1978 forbidding a
revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. to the High Court from a Judgment or
. order in appeal by the District Court where the suit out of whi'ch the case arisea
is not one of the value of Rs. 20,000/- and above-Import and impact ol Section
3 of the U.P. Amendment Act, 1918-Article 136 of the Constitution-Supreme
Court's power to interfere.
c
Dismissing the spedal leave petitions, the Court

. HEID : !. Ordinarily when a State Legislation is being interpreted the mean·
ing received by it in the High Court as the settled intent shontd rarely be disturbed
by the supreme Conrt unless the error is so egregiou&, the impsct goes beyond
the State or.like legislation elsewhere and decisions of the High Courts thereon D
may lead to confusion and uncertainty. [979 A·B]

2. Viewing the text of Section 3, lexically literally, schematically, and in the
setting of social justice of which saving the average litigant from the intoxication
of tantalising litigation is component, "No revision to the High Conrt" wonld be
the only conclusion. Purposively speaking, it will b'e stultifying fO interpret,
oection 3 to mean that orders in appeol ·by District Conrts must suffer a distmit E
journey to revisory justice from the High Court. [980 CD}

Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, [1980) 3 S.C.R. 32 clarified.
3. The short test to refuse revisory jurisdiction to the High Court is to ae-
certain whether the decision sought to be challen&ed is in a case arising out of
a suit of the valuation of Rs. 20,000/· and more. If the aaswer is 'Yes' theB
the High. Court bas revisory 1power, but if the suit from which the cue arises and

...
'
'
in \\!llch the decision is made is one where the valuation is lesa than Rs. 20,000/·
then the litigation cannot travel beyond the District Court except in that class of
cases where the decioion is taken for the first time by the District Court it&elf in
a case ariSing ont of an ori&inal proceeding. From thiS angle, none of the Specill
Leave Petitions survive. (980 D·FJ

After all, our District Courts are easier of acce!S for titigimla, and the High G
Courts, especially in large States like Uttar Pradesh, are
'untouchable' and 'un·
approach•ble' for agrestic populations and even urban middle classes. Nor la
there ground to distrust the District Judges. A hierarchy of courts built upon
a heritage of disbelief ·in inferiors has an imperial llavonr. If we suspect a
Munsif and put a District Judge over him for everything he does, if We distrUlt
a district Judge and vest the High Court with pervasive supervision, if we be
skeptical about the High Courts and watch meticulously over all their orders, the H
System will break down as its morale will crack up. A psychic communicable
disease o! suspicion, skepticism 0nd servility cannot make for the health of the
974 SIJPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A judicial system. If the Supreme Court has a super-Supreme Court above it, it is
<doubtful whether many of its verdicts will survive, judging by the frequency
with which it diffeno from itself. [979 P,.GJ

Observation

Democracy, in a vast country of diversity, demographic immensity, logistic
8 difficulty and larg'e-sca!e indigency, makea decentralisation an . imperative of
Administration. Ae<:eas to Justice also implies early finality within reach of the
rich and the poor. Theae considerations persuaded the U.P. State, one of Ill&
direst in pover:ty, largest in population, and most agrestic in life-style, to attempt
a tepid procedural reform in the field of revision to the High Court in litigations
of lesSer financial stakes. Judicial reform is upto now a tinkering exercise, not 8Jl
engineering project but even that little tinkering is fiercely challenged as litigative
c anathema by the profession which is unfortunate. [980 G-H, 981 A-BJ

CIVIL .APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos. 9945, 10550, 8857 of 1979. ·
From the Judgments and Orders dated 23-7-1979, 25-9-1979 and
18-7-1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision Nos. 3832/
D 78, 2042/79 & 264/76.
Manoj Swarup for the Petitioner in SLP Nos. 9945 & 8857.
Pramod Swarup for the Petitioners in SLP No. 10550. ,
N. N. Sharma for the Respondent .No. 1 in SLP No. 9945.
B A. K. Srivastava for Respondents Nos. 1-2 in ~LP No. 10550.
ilfohan Behari Lal for Respondent No. 1 in SLP No. 8857.

The Order of the Court was delivered by
KrusHNA IYER, J. These petitions for special leave deserve to be
dismissed because the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High
Court which is challenged in all the three has been rightly decided
in our view. Even so, a speaking. order has become necessary
because, as rightly pointed out by counsel, the earlier decision of this
Court in Vishesh. Kumar v. Shanti Prasad(') does not specifically
cover the precise point that has been raised before us by counsel f-Or
thll petitioner. We are concerned with the ambit and impact of s. 3
of the Code of Civil Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act,
.
1978 (for short, the Act) , which forbids a revision under s. 115 ofl
the Civil Procedure Code (acronymically, the C.P.C.) to the High
Court from a judgment or order in appeal by the District Court
where the suit out of which the case arises is not one of the value
B of Rs. 20,000/- and above.
(1) [1980] 3 S.C.R. 32.
,_,. j

VISHNU AWATAR v. SHIV AUTAR (Krishna Iyer, /.) 975

We have, in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad (supra) considered A
the scheme, setting and purpose of the U.P. Amendment ro the
Civil Procedure Code bearing on the revisory power of the High
~ . _,L . Court under s. 115 C.P.C. We may quote:
· A schematic analysis of the judicial hierarchy within
a State indicates that the High Court, as the apex court
in the hierarchy, has been entrusted, not only with the
supreme appellate power exercised within the State but also,
•
by virtue of s. 115, the power to remove, in order to prevent
a miscarriage of justice, any jurisdictional error committed
by a subordinate court in those cases where the error cannot
be corrected by resOrt to its appellate jurisdiction. The c
two salient features of revisional jurisdiction under s. 115
are, on the one hand, the closely limited grounds on which
the court is permitted to interfere and on the other, the
wide expanse of discretion available to the court,. when it
decides to interfere, in making an appropriate order. The
intent is that so serious an error as one of jurisdiction, if D
committed by a subordinate court, should not remain un-
corrected, and should be removed and record healed of the
infirmity by an order shaped to reinstate the proceeding
within the proper jurisdictional confines of the subordinate
court.
E
xx xx xx
From its inception there was increasing resort to the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 115. Over
the years the volume of litigation reached an insupportable
point in the pending docket of the Court. ·To alleviate the;
burden, a pattern of decentralisation of revisional power F
was adopted and s. 115 was amended by successive State

--. 'I amendments, each attempting to close the gap left by its
predecessors.
Many times, amendments were made by the U .P. Legislature to.

... effectuate its determined purpose of dichotomising and decentralising
the revisional jurisdiction, · a goal which is laµdable and which other
G

States may well regard as a paradigm.
The crucial provision, s. 3 of the Act, reads thus :
115. The High Court, in cases arising Oil! of original
suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand ·H
rupees and above, including such suits or other proceedings
instituted before Aug. 1, 1978 and the District Court in any
. :; ..

976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.ll.

A other case, including a case arising out of an original' suit
or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call
for the record of any case which has been decided by any
court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as
the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto,. and
if such subordinate court appears -
B (a) ·to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it gy
law; or ·
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
( c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illega!ly or with material irregularity;
c
the High Court or the I>istrict Court, as the case may be, may make
such order in the case as it thinks fit.
Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits ()['
other proceedings of any valuation, decided, by the District Court,
D the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under
this sec!ion.
Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall ·
·not under this section, vary or reverse any ()['der including an order
deci.cling an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding,
E except where,.- ·
(i) the order, if so varied or reversed, w(!Uld finally dis· ~·
pose of the suit or other proceeding; or
(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, woold occasion a
failure, of justice or cause irreparable injury to the
p party against whom it was made.
(Explanation)-In this section, the expression 'any case
which bas been decided' includes any other deciding an
issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding.

The bulk of the cases we disposed of in the earlier round turned
G on the teaability of a revision upon a revii;ion-a product of legal
ingenuity oy which the attempt of the legislature to save the little ...
litigant from the logistics of justice from the distant High Court by
confining lesser revisions to the District Court was metamorphosed
into a du!!! revision, one at the District Court level and the other
at the High Court against the District Court's order in revision. Value-
8 free legalistics can be counter-productive acrobatics ! When that
happened the Legislature stepped in again and again and we are
concerned with the import and impact of s. 3 of the Act vis a vis /'
VISHNU AWATAR v~ SHIV AUTAR (Krishna Iyer, J.) 977

iippellat~ orders of District Courts where the suits from which they A
mem are Jess than Rs. 20,000/c in value. A brief analysi~ of that
provision is contained in Vishesh Kumar (supra) :

"4. From 1st August, 1978 :
Fmally, s. 3, Code of Civil Procedure (Uttar Pradesh
B
Amendment) Act, 1978, which was deemed to have come
into force on 1st August, 1978, amended s.115 again and
restored the bifurcation of revisional jurIBdictien between
the High Court and the District Court.

Accordingly now :
c
(i) The High Court alone had jurisdiction under s.115
in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings
· of the value 'of Rs. 20,000 and above, including such suits
or other proceedings instituted before 1st August, 1978;
(ii) The District Court alone has jurisdiction under D
s.115 in any other case, including a case arising out of an
original suits or other proceedings. instituted before 1st
August, 1978;
(iii) The High Court has jurisdiction under s.115 in
respect of cases arising out of original suits or other procee-
dings of any valuation, decided by the District Court; E

(iv) A revision proceeding pending immediately before
1st August, 1978 of the nature in which a District Court
could exercise revisional · power under s.115 as amended by
the Amendment Act, 1978 if pending;
F
(a) in the District Court, would be decided by that
court as if the Amenlhtent Act of 1978 were in force at all
material times;
(b) in the High Court, would be decided by the High
Court as if the Amendement Act of 1978 had not come into G
force.

The provision now before us is slightly different although the pur-
pose and the result are the same. The scheme is clear. The High
Court has re~y iiower only in cases ·arising out of original suits or
other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand n:ipees and above R
including such suits or other proceedings instituted before Aug.1,
1978. The entire residuary area belongs to the District Court. An-
978 SUPREME COURT REPORT.S [1980] 3 S.C.I.~

A other test of revisional jurisdiction for the High Court is (o see whet-
her the first proviso applies :
Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original
suits or other proceedings of any valuation, decided by
the District Court, the High Court alone shall be compe-

• tent to make an order under this section .
The High Court, in the last Full Bench decision traced the story ·
of the rare between the legislature and judicial interpretation and sum-
med up the result rightly thus : (') .,'f'
''The High Court was confined to cases arising out of
c original suits or other proceedings of the value of Rupees
20,000/- or. above,· including such suits or other proceed.
ings instituted before 1st August, 1978. The jurisdictioni
of the District Court was in respect of any other case in-
cluding a case arising out of an appeal suit or other pro-
ceeding instituted before such date. The legislature has
D continued to use the phrase "cases arising out of original
suits". The interpretation placed upon this phrase by the
Full Beoch in Har Prasad Singh"s case (AIR 1973 All.
390) will apply. The revisional jurisdiction would hence
not extend 'to cases arising out of the disposal of appeals
or revisions by the District Court. The proviso is also in
E the same terms as the proviso added in 1973 namely, it
uses the phrase cases arifiing out of original suits or other
proceedings". As already seen, it will not cover cases
arising out of disposal of appeals or revisions.
The words "or o~er proceeding8" in the! phrase "cases
ll' arising out of original suits ·or other proceedings" refer to
proceedings of final nature. These words have been added
in order to bring within the purview of the revisional juris-
diction ordern passed iri proceedings .of an origill!ll nature,
which are not of the nature of suits, like arbitration pro-
ceeding11. This phrase cannot include decisions of appeals
G or revisions, because then the legislature will be deemed to
have contradicted itself. The words "or other proceed-
. ings" have to be read ejusdem generis with the words "ori-
ginal suits". They will not include appeals or revisions.
The phrase "in any other case" used with reference to
H the District G:ourt will refer to cases arising out of original
(1) Jupitor Chit Fund (Pvt) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh (FB) AIR 1979 All. 218 at-
225 .
VISHNU AWATAR v. SHIV AUTAR (Krishna Iyer, /.) 979

suits of the value of less than Rs. 20,000/- and also cases A
arising out of other proceedings of an original nature of a
valuation below Rs. 20,000/-".

Ordinarily whe'n a State legislation is being interpreted the mean-
ing received by it in the High Court as the settled intent should rarely
• be disturbed by this Court unless the error is so egregious; the •
· impact goes beyond the State or like legislation elsewhere and deci-
sions of the High Courts thereon may lead to confusion and uncer-
tainty. Here llo such consideration arises and the reasoning of the
High Court strikes us as sound. ·

The residuary power is with the District Court. The High Court
c
has no revisional power under s. 115 unless the case arises out ol
an original suit or other proceeding i.e. other original proceeding
decided by the District Court or where the case arises from a snit of
and above Rs. 20,000/- in value. If thl' District Court has decided,
not in its original jurisdiction, then the case, be it a revisional or D
appellate order, is 'not amenable to the High Court's revisional juris-
diction. Of course, if the case arises out of suits or other proceeding
of the value of Rs. 20,000/- and above, the High Court has revisory
power. All other cases fall . outside and become final at the District
Court level.
E
After all, our District Courts are easier of access for litigants, and
the High Courts; especially in large States like Uttar Pradesh, are
'untouchable' and 'unapproachable' for agrestic populations and even
urban middle classes. Nor is there ground to distrust the District
Judges. A hierarchy <?f courts built upon a heritage of disbelief in
inferiors has an imperial flavour. If we suspect a Munsif and put Jr
a District Judge QVer him-for every thing he does, if we distrust a

,-,
\
\
District Judge and vest the High Court with pervasive supervision, if
we be skeptical about the High Courts and watch meticulously over
all their orders, the System will break down as it~ morale will crack
up. A phychic communicable disease of suspicion, skepticism and
servility cannot make for the health of the judicial system. If the G
Supreme Court has a super-Supreme Court above it, who knows how
many of its verdicts will survive, judging by the frequency with which
· it ditrers from itself.

Schematically, we are satisfied, that decisions of District Courts
rendered in appeal or revision are beyond revision by the High Court, D
if the suit is of less than Rs. 20,000/-. But an exception has been
engrafted by the first proviso to s.3· to the effect that where an origi-
~ I ' •
..
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c:a..

A nal decision has been made by a District Court the High Court's
appellate or revisional power will come into play. That is at as it
should be, for one appeal or revision is almost universal. But other-
.wise, the District Court's decision is immune to revisional probe by
the High Court.

.:B Lexically, there is no escape from s. 3 because the whole residue,
except where the High Court has been expressly vested with revisory
power, is beyond reach under s. 115 C;P.C.
Precedentially, the result is no different as the Full Bench of the
High Court has been at pains to make out. Purposively speaking, it
:c will be stultifying to interpret s. 3 to mean that orders in apjieal by
District Courts must suffer a distant journey to revisory justice from
the High Court. /fhus we reach thel convergent conclusion of "110 re-
vision to the High Court", viewing the text of ~. 3, lexically, literally,
schematically, and in the setting of spcial justice of which ooving the
average litigent from the intoxication 00' tantalising litigation is a oom·
1> ponent.
The short te&t to refuse revisory juriscliction to the High Court is
to ascertain whether the decision sought to be challenged is in a case
arising out of a suit of the valuation of Rs. 20,000/- and more. If
the answer is 'yes' then the High Court has revisory power, but if the .
.E suit from which the case arises and in which the decision is made is
one where the valuation is less than! Rs. 20,000/• then the litigation
cannot travel beyond the District Court except in that class of cases
where the decision is taken for the first time by the District Court
itself in a case arising out of an original proceeding. From this angle,
none of the Special Leave Petitions sui'vive. Special Leave Petition
fl No. 9945 of 1979 is a case where the District Judge dis)JOISed of an
appeal and the revision to the Hi&h Court was directed agaiRst the \
appellate order. The subject-matter of the suit being below Rs.
· 20,000/- in valuation, the High Court was right in refusing to exer-
cise any revisional power. Special Leave Petition No. 10550 of 1979
falls ih the same category and must be dismissed. The result in
G Special Leave Petition No. 8857 of 1979· is equally fatal and for the
same lethal reason.

Bef.ore we part with the ·case, we may make .a general observa-
tion in the hope that it may have value as legislative guidance. Democ- ·,,,..- r
racy, in a vast country, of diversity, demographic immensity, logistic
0 · difficulty and large-scale indigency, makes decentralisation ;i.nd im-
perative of Administration. Access to Justice also implies early fin-
ality within reach of the rich and the poor. · These considerations pel'-
VISHNU AWATAR v. SHIV AUTAR (Krishna Iyer, !.) 981

suaded the U.P. State, one of the direst in poverty, largest in popula-
tion, and most agrestic in life-style, to attempt a tepid procedural re-
"' .
form in the field of revision to the High Court in litigations of lesser
financial stakes. Judicia! reform is up to now a tinkering exercise, not
.. an engineering project but even that little tinkering is fiercely challeng-
ed as litigative anathema by the profession which is unfortunate.

S.R. Petitiona, dismissed.