Jagdish Prasad Gupta and Another vs Sankta Prasad

Hari Swarup, J.—This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the IV Additional District Judge, Kheri.

A suit was instituted by the Respondent u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession. The trial court after considering the evidence came to the finding that on the date of alleged dispossession by the Defendant the Plaintiff was not in possession. After this finding he dismissed the suit.

The Plaintiff went up in revision and the revision was allowed. The revisional court took the view that the trial Court had committed error in holding that the Plaintiff was not in possession and as such it had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to reverse the finding of fact and that on the finding of fact recorded by the trial court the decree was not even erroneous. He has further contended that there was no case of failure to exercise jurisdiction by the trial court.

The finding of the trial court was that the Plaintiff was not in possession but the possession was of the vendee Smt. Pushpa Devi to whom the property had been sold and that the luggage had been kept by the Plaintiff in the house only with the permission of the vendee. The court in exercise of its powers u/s 115 of the CPC could not have reversed the finding on reappreciation of evidence. The finding had to be accepted as final for determining if the judgment and decree of the trial court were liable to be interferred with in exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The powers of the revisional court are very limited and are circumscribed by the provisions of Section 115 of the Code. Section 115 permits a revisional court to reverse the order of a subordinate court only if it appears-

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

Clause (a) obviously does not apply because the suit had been instituted in accordance with law and the court had jurisdiction to pass a decree therein. Clause (b) also does not apply because the trial court had finally decided the suit. Once a suit is instituted and the court passes a decree in the suit, it cannot be said to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. If the court has jurisdiction to decide a case then even an erroneous decision of the suit will not amount to non-decision thereof or non-exercise of jurisdiction by the court.

The case could also not be covered by Clause (c) as the trial court had not been shown to have exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In Keshardeo Chamria Vs. Radha Kissen Chamria and Others, the Supreme Court had while explaining Clause (c) of Section 115 of the CPC observed:

that in exercising jurisdiction the court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision.

In the present case, there was no breach of any provision of law committed by the trial court in passing the decree. There was also no error of procedure pointed out in the case. The revisional court has not referred to any such error. The court below had thus no jurisdiction to set aside the decree of the trial court in exercise of its powers u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court below had thus in reversing the trial court''s decree exercised a jurisdiction which, in the circumstances of the case, was not available to it. The order has, therefore to be quashed. We accordingly allow this petition with costs and quash the impugned order. The decree of the trial court is restored.