JUDGMENT
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. Plaintiff-respondents appeared in the AMIE examination conducted by the Institution of Engineering (India) 8, Gokhale Road, Calcutta (for short the Institution) in the summer examination held in the year 1996. The centre on the examination was at Chandigarh. It may be mentioned that the Institution conducts these examinations at all India level with centres spread all over the country. After the examination was over the plaintiffs received a notice dated 4.10.1996 from the Secretary and Director General of the Institution informing them about the allegations of the use of unfair means by them while appearing in the paper of Management of System (IC-02) held on 15.06.1996. It was alleged that they ‘copied from printed sheets’. They were required to submit their written explanation within fifteen days from the date of letter and to appear in person before the Examination Disciplinary Committee (EDC) on 29.10.1996 at 10.30 AM at the headquarter of the Institution at Calcutta failing which an exparte decision would be taken without any further reference to them. The plaintiffs sent their written explanation and enquired from the Institution whether their personal appearance was still necessary. They received another letter dated 18.10.1996 requiring them to appear before the EDC on the date already fixed. The matter regarding the use of unfair means by the plaintiffs was considered by the President on behalf of the Institution and it was decided to cancel their result for the Summer 1996 examinations. They were also debarred from appearing in the immediately following examinations of the Institution upto and including Summer 1997 examinations. This intimation was sent through a registered letter dated 12.11.1996. The order cancelling the result of their examination and debarring them from appearing for another one year in the examinations of the Institution was challenged by the plaintiffs in the suit out of which the present revision petition has arisen. A declaration has been sought to the effect that the order of punishment is illegal, null and void and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Along with the plaint an application was filed for the grant of a temporary injunction for a direction to the Institution to permit the plaintiffs to take the Summer examination which is commencing in June, 1997. The suit as also the application for the grant of a temporary injunction is being contested by the Institution though it has yet to file its written statement to the plaint. In reply to the application it is pleaded that the Courts at Chandigarh have no jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs have been debarred from appearing in the examinations for one year after conducting a regular inquiry against them in which they were afforded full opportunity to defend themselves in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
2. On a consideration of the contentions advanced by the parties, the trial Court as per order dated 6.3.1997 allowed the application and granted a temporary injunction requiring the Institution to allow the plaintiffs to submit their forms and to appear in the examination without prejudice to their rights. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the Institution.
3. I have heard counsel for the parties.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, it being contended that the impugned order granting the temporary injunction is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the present revision petition Under Section 115 of the Code is not maintainable. There is no merit in this objection. No doubt, the impugned order is applicable under Order 43 of the Code but the appeal there-from lies to the Court of District Judge and not to the High Court and, therefore, the present petition Under Section 115 of the Code is not barred. A plain reading of Section 115 of the Code would show that the High Court can call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court ‘and in which no appeal lies thereto’. The material word is ‘thereto’ which refers to the High Court. If an order is appealable and an appeal lies to the High Court then a revision petition Under Section 115 of the Code is barred but if the appeal lies to a Court subordinate to the High Court then Section 115 does not debar the filing of the revision petition against that order in the High Court. The view that I have taken finds support from a decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Vidya Vati v. Shri Devi Das, AIR 1977 SC 397.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the trial Court manifestly erred in granting the temporary injunction because the plaintiffs had no prima facie case in their favour in the light of the order passed by the EDC of the Institution debarring them from appearing in the examination for one year including the summer examination scheduled for 14.6.1997. There is merit in this submission of the learned counsel. The Institution conducts examinations on all India basis with centres all over the country. It has framed its examination rules and has also set up an EDC for dealing with the candidates who use unfair means during the course of examinations. After the examination was over the Institution received complaints that the two plaintiffs here had indulged in the use of unfair means inasmuch as they had copied the answers from printed sheets. In order to enquire into the allegations the plaintiffs-respondents were issued a notice and their explanation was called which was furnished by them. They were also called to appeal in person before the EDC. They were heard by the Committee and after considering their explanation the President of the Institution decided to cancel their result of the examination and also debar them from appearing for another one year. Apparently there is an order passed by a competent authority after complying with the principles of natural justice debarring the plaintiffs from appearing in the examination for one year. What is contended by the plaintiffs-respondents is that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with and that they were not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend themselves. It is also alleged that they were never shown the sheets from which they had copied the answers. Be that as it may, at a stage of grant of temporary injunction only the order disqualifying the plaintiffs was before the trial Court and unless a glaring error in this order could be pointed out it could not be said that a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs had been made out. The impugned order of the trial Court does not indicate the basis on which it came to the conclusion that there existed a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. The order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction cannot thus be sustained.
6. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts at Chandigarh have no jurisdiction in view of Rule 13 as incorporated in the examination rules by the Institution on 25.9.1994 and, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in granting a temporary injunction. The learned counsel placed reliance on several decisions of the Apex Court in support of his contention. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents contended that the plaintiffs appeared in the examination at Chandigarh which was one of the centres appointed by the Institution and since the cause of action arose at Chandigarh the Courts at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction. It is not necessary for me to decide this question and even if it be assumed that the Courts at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the grant of a temporary injunction as they have no prima facie case in their favour.
7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.3.1997 set aside and the application for the grant of temporary injunction dismissed. No costs.