AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 209 wordsBest, J.—The preliminary objection is taken that this is not a case in which revision is allowed by Section 622 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, and in support of this objection reference is made to the case reported in L. R 11 I. A 237 Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh
Singh.
On the other hand I have been referred on behalf of the petitioner to Birj Mohun Thakoor v. Rai Uma Nath Chowdhry L. R 19 I. A 154 In this
latter case, however, it was expressly found that the Subordinate judge had ""declined to exercise a jurisdiction which he had, and exercised one
which did not belong to him;"" the former, in not confirming u/s 312, a sale for the setting aside of which no application had been made u/s 311; and
the latter, in setting aside the sale u/s 313 on the application of a persons not entitled to make such application under that section.
The present case is one in which the District Munsif clearly had jurisdiction and the mere fact of his decision being erroneous is not sufficient to
justify its revision u/s 622 as held in L. R 11 I.A 237
This petition is therefore dismissed with costs.