JUDGMENT
S.K. Dubey, J.
1. In a long drawn litigation which is pending since 17-11-1975, in relation to the immovable property which consists of agricultural land and residential building, the petitioners are aggrieved of the order of the Revisional Court passed in C. R. No. 5/89 arising out of Civil Suit No. 128-A/88, filed by Abdul Razzak (Respondents No. 1 to 4), wherein the Revisional Court has restrained the petitioners who are purchasers
pendente lite of 4.99 acres of land shown in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ annexed with the plaint of the first suit (C. S. No. 156-A/75) renumbered as C. S. No. 6-A/88.
2. The case has its own chequered history. One Mirza Rashid and others instituted the first suit against the respondents No. 1 to 4 for possession and damages on the avermants that the sale-deeds executed by them were not the real sales but were nominal sales as a security towards the repayment of the loan advanced to the plaintiffs, namely, Mirza Rashid and others, therefore, it was alleged therein that the defendant Inayatullah Khan,, who was the purchaser has no right and title to the property. In the suit, after the enforcement of enactment of M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short the ‘Act’) from 31-1-77, a plea was raised that the transaction which were subsisting on the enforcement of the said Act, the transactions are prohibited transactions, of loan as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act, therefore, claimed to be discharged. The plaintiff approached Under Section 5 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) under the Act for seeking the relief. The S.D.O. declared the sales as void as loan transactions and confirmed the title possession of the plaintiff, vide order dated 1-6-1979. Pursuant to this order the plaintiff was put in possession on 1-1-79. The predecessor of respondents, preferred an appeal, which was heard by the Additional Collector, who vide order dated 10-3-1980 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of S.D.O. and remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After remand, the S.D.O., reconsidered the matter in the light of the remand order, vide order dated 16-8-1982 and rejected the application. The applicant/ plaintiff preferred the appeal before the collector, which was dismissed on 14-3-1983. Aggrieved of this a petition No. 1446/83 was preferred by Mirza Rashid Beg which was dismissed on 17-9-85. A review M.C.C. No. 507/85 against this order was also dismissed on 24-1-1986. After the order of remand by the Additional Collector, the vendee In
ayatullah Khan was put in possession in execution of the warrant of possession executed on 21-5-1981. During the pendency of all these proceedings and the suit, the petitioners who are purchasers pendente-lite purchased the some part of the land vide registered sale-deed dated 27-2-1967 and started interfering with the possession of the Inayatullah Khan, hence, he instituted a suit (C.S. No. 128-A/88) wherein, an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. was also filed. As in the first suit the application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant were pending, the trial court disposed of the three applications, vide order on 14-9-1988, Annexure-P/I, directing the parties to maintain status-quo. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents No. 1 to 4 preferred a revision before the Revisional Court i.e. 3rd Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, An objection was raised by the petitioners that an appeal under Order 43, Rule l(r), C.P.C. would lie and not the revision. The Revisional Court observed that the objection shall be decided at the time of final hearing. After final hearing of the revision, the Revisional Court allowed the revision by construing the order as was passed under Section 151, C.P.C. and restrained the petitioners and other defendants from interfering with the possession of the respondents No. 1 to 4. Aggrieved’of this order, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Kumari Tripti Kohlia, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on short-noted decisions of this Court in Lakshmi Narayan v. Sundarbai, 1979 (xi) WN 230, Anil Kumar v. Kashinath, 1981 (1) MPWN 257 and Surendra Kumar v. Canara Bank, 1993 (I) MPWN 45. contended that the revisional jurisdiction was illegally exercised, as the order was passed on the applications under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2, C.P.C., of maintaining status-quo. Therefore, if the respondents were aggrieved of the order, they ought to have preferred an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. It was also submitted that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the
Revisional Court ought not to have interfered in the findings recorded by the trial Court, as the findings were neither illegal nor were without jurisdiction. Therefore the order dated 21-7-1993 (Annexure-P/3) be quashed.
4. On the other hand, Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 placing reliance on a Supreme Court decision in case of Firm Ishardass v. Prakash Chand, AIR 1969 SC 938 contended that even if this Court considers that the Revisional Court acted illegally by construing the order as one passed Under Section 151, C.P.C., there are two course open; one is to decide the case by this Court itself or to remit the case to the said Court because the revision filed was within the period of limitation of filing the appeal the Court fee paid was the same and the Court which heard the revision was also the appellate Court, therefore, no interference is called for nor any useful purpose would be served. It is submitted that the equity is not in favour of the petitioner. The petitioners and their predecessors are dragging these proceedings since 1975, therefore, the matter be decided by this Court on merits.
5. After hearing counsel for both sides, I am of the opinion that so far as the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Revisional Court is concerned, the Revisional Court certainly acted in an error while construing the order as one passed Under Section 151, C.P.C. It is well settled rule of a practice that an order or judgment has to be read as a whole for deciding the case, a sentence or words cannot be picked to decide a case. The Revisional Court picked out a sentence from the order of trial Court wherein, the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, thought it proper to direct the parties to maintain status-quo, till the decision of the suits. The two applications in the first suit and the application filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 were all under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C., therefore, it cannot be construed in any manner that the Order X passed was Under Section 151, C.P.C. Therefore, the respondents No. 1 to 4 ought to have preferred an appeal under Order 39 (43), Rule 1 (r), C.P.C, and not a revision, see a decision of
this Court in case of Patram v. Rameshwar Dayal, AIR 1979 NOC 182 (MP) : 1979 JLJ 622 hence, the order of the Revisional Court cannot be sustained.
6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 that the findings recorded by the Revisional Court do not call for any interference. Suffice to say, that the order was passed by the Court having no jurisdiction. Observations made or findings recorded are totally ineffective and cannot in any sense be regarded as adjudication of the lis. If any authority is needed see Upendranath v. Lall, AIR 1940 PC p. 222 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Rewa v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, 1994 MPLJ JP 704.
7. The last submission of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4, that, this Court under Article 227 itself can decide the applications under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C., as the facts are clear and the equity is not in favour of the petitioners or’ their predecessors and further the conduct of the predecessors also does not entitle the petitioners for any relief or interference in the possession of the respondents No. 1 to 4. The submission cannot be accepted as under Article 227 this Court exercises supervisory powers to see that inferior Courts and Tribunals act within their jurisdiction and they do what their duty requires to do in the legal manner. The High Court cannot substitute its own judgment either on facts or law only because the litigation is pending since 1975 and some of the parties have also died which could not see the result of the litigation.
8. As a result of the above, the order of Revisional Court is quashed, petition is allowed and the case is sent back to the 3rd Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Bilaspur, wherein, the respondents No. 1 to 4 may file an application for converting the revision into an appeal. On filing of the application, the Revisional Court shall convert the said revision into appeal and shall decide the same afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of the
appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the said Court on 30th January, 1995, for that no fresh notice shall be issued to the parties. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to see that other defendants are also noticed about the date of hearing, besides, the 3rd Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Bilaspur shall also serve notice on them through their counsel. A direction to the trial Court is also necessary where the suits are pending since long. The trial Court shall see that the suits are disposed of expeditiously, as far as possible with an outer limit of six months. If necessary, the trial shall proceed ‘Do die in dien’ i.e., from day to day till it is concluded, No costs.
9. C.C. be supplied within 4 days on payment
of usual charges.
