Om Prakash Gupta vs State Transport Authority and Others

Rajeshwar Singh, J.—This is a Civil revision against the order of Additional District Judge under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC directing the revisionist to implead opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 as parties to a suit filed by the revisionist.

The facts are that the revisionist filed a suit against State Transport Authority praying that they be restrained from issuing temporary permit and secured a temporary injunction. The opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 who had temporary permit for a certain periods and expected to get it renewed applied for being made party. The learned Additional District Judge directed them to be made parties by the impugned order against which the present revision has been filed.

There are two points in this case--one is whether the revision against this order can be entertained and the other is whether the order is such that revision should be admitted.

The power u/s 115 of the CPC can be exercised if Subordinate Court 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.

In the case of Manick Chandra Nandy Vs. Debdas Nandy and Others, Supreme Court pointed out that u/s 115 CPC revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised by the High Court in a case in which no appeal lies to it from the decision of a Subordinate Court if it appears to it that the Subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is thus confined to question of jurisdiction.

Again in the case of Sushila Devi and Others Vs. Avinash Chandra Jain and Others, , the Supreme Court said that it is necessary to emphasise that unlike Section 115 of the CPC where the High Court''s power of interference in revision touches jurisdiction, the power of the High Court to interfere in revision under Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act is much wider in scope. This again shows that revisional power u/s 115 CPC touches jurisdiction.

The case of State of U.P. v. Bank of Mahararhtra Ltd. Bombay 1982 AU 824 is a single Judge decision of Allahabad High Court, there it was said that it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction is confined to cases of illegal or irregular exercise or non-exercise or illegal assumption of the jurisdiction by the Subordinate Courts. If a Subordinate Court is found to possess the jurisdiction to decide a matter, it can not be said to exercise it illegally or with material irregularity, even if it decides the matter wrongly. In other words, it is not open to this Court while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC to correct errors of fact, howsoever, gross or even errors of law unless the errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist referred to the case of Sri Mandir Mahadev Prithvi Nath v. Swarm Prakashanand 1981 ALJ 567. It was a case under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court interfered. But it is worth noticing that he said "In the present case the exercise of the power was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court below mainly for the reason that in so far as Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were concerned, they had already entered into a compromise with the Plaintiffs and the suit had been terminated. As for Defendant No. 6 though on 10-9-1974 he gave an application for impleadment of Defendant No. 4 and himself and some other persons but subsequently on 5--8--75 he gave another application withdrawing that application." Thus it was for this reason that it was held that the Subordinate Court had acted beyond jurisdiction.

The revisionist referred to another case of Narayan Chandra Garai and Others Vs. Matri Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. and Another, . It was not a case of revision. In this ruling it was noticed that in case of Rampur Tannery and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Umar Uddin AIR 1954 All. 2 a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the Court had inherent jurisdiction to entertain the application of a stranger to be made a party and to implead any person as a party to a suit where the addition is considered to be in the interest of justice.

The Supreme Court case of Basant Roadways Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others, relied upon by the revisionist is on another point.

The expression "material irregularity" or "illegally" has a limited connotation. It means that the challenged order poses a problem about a material defect in the procedure adopted by the Court while dealing with the matter before it and not of either law or fact after the prescribed procedure was complied with. In AIR 1949 156 (Privy Council) their Lordships of the Privy Council construed the words "acting illegally" to mean acting in breach of some provisions of law and the words "acting with material irregularity" to mean committing some errors of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision.

In the case before me, the Court below was aware of the fact that those persons are impleaded who are necessary parties and in whose absence the matter can not be decided completely and effectively. It referred to various circumstances and then it came to the conclusion that the persons whose impalement was ordered were necessary parties and it was necessary to implead them to decide the matter completely and effectively. This conclusion of the Court below may be wrong but it was reached after considering the facts and circumstances and the court below had jurisdiction to decide the matter whether opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 should be impleaded or not. No error of procedure was committed, hence it can not be said that the court acted with material irregularity or illegally. The result is that there should be no interference in exercise of revisional powers of this Court, even if, the view taken by the Court below may be erroneous.

So the revision is dismissed.