P C PUN Vs. POLYOLEFINS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No, I against the order dated 11th November, 1983 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 24th February 1984 of the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi granting stay of' dispossession till the decision of the suit was dismissed as time barred. The petitioner-defendant No. I feeling aggrieved has come up in revision before this court.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the petitioner Shri P.C. Puri and other had obtained a decree for eviction of respondent No. 2- namely. The Monsento Chemicals of India (.P) Ltd. in respect of Property No. 46, Jor Bag Nursery, New Delhi and the respondent M/s. Polyolefins Industries Ltd. filed a suit for declartion that it was a tenant in possession of the suit property and was not liable to be dispossessed in execution of the said decree and in the said suit an application for ad interim injunction was filed and it was in pursuance of the said application that ad interim injunction till the disposal of the suit was granted to respondent No. I on 24.2.1983. The petitioners feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 11th November, 1983 by the learned Addl. District Judge as time barred and hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the order of the learned appellate court as also through the affidavits filed along with the applications for condonation of delay before the lower court and has urged that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and the appeal should not have been dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent No. I has urged that :the scope of Section 115C.P.C.is somewhat limited and the facts of the present case d,o not admit of maintainability of this revision petition which should be dismissed. He has drawn my attention to Shri M.L. Sethi v. Shri R.P. Kapur AIR 1972 S.C. 2379 in which it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows : "The jurisdiction of the High Court undersection 1.15 Civil Procedure Code is a limited one. The Section is not directed against conclusions, of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved - Section 115 empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity by committing some-error of-procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the High Court is satisfied on these three matters it has no power to interfere because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate court on questions of fact or law. A distinction must.be drawn between the errors committed by subordinate courts in deciding questions of.law.which have relation to, or are concerned with questions of jurisdiction of the said court, and errors of law which have no such relation or connection. An erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate court which has no relation to questions of ' ' jurisdictions Of that court, cannot be corrected by' the High Court under Section 115 It was similarly held in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another, V. AJit Prasad Tarway. Manager (Purchase .and Stores)'HinduStan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad' AIR 1973 S.C. 76 that"the High Court should not interfere even'if the order' is right or wronger in accordance with law or not, unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity". It would be difficult to say on the facts of this case that the lower appellate court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon AIR 1964 S.C. 497 it was held as follows : "The power given by the Sec. 115 of the Code is clearly limited to the keeping of the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It does not comprehend the power exercisable under the writ of Prohibition or Mandamus. It is also not a full power of Certiorari inasmuch as it arises only in a case of jurisdiction and not in a case of error. It has been ruled by the Judicial Committee and also by this court that the section is concerned with jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone involving a refusal to exercise jurisdiction where one exists or an assumption of jurisdiction where none exists and lastly acting with illegality or material irregularity. Where there is no question of jurisdiction in this manner the decision cannot be corrected for it has also been ruled that a court has Jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. But once a flaw of jurisdiction is found the High Court need not quash and remit as is the practice in English Law under the writ of certiorari but pass such order as it thinks fit". Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the principles of law enunciated in the aboverulings. In the face of this situation it would be difficult to say that the order dated llth November,1983isliable to be modified or revised in this petition. This position apart, even on merits, there is no force in the revision petition.