KESAVAN Vs. ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned advocate of, the respondent seriously opposes the petition for excusing the delay. It is well settled that there is no statutory period of limitation for filing a revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THEre is also no right of revision conferred on any party, whereby he may request the High Court, as of right, to revise an order passed by a Subordinate Court against him. THE revisional jurisdiction of the High court under S. 115 is purely a matter of discretion and the High Court may call for the record of any case decided by a Subordinate court and if the High Court is satisfied that the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the High court may revise the order and make any other order as it thinks fit. Strictly speaking the High Court has the power to exercise this jurisdiction at any time without reference to any prescribed period of limitation and that suo motu. That being the case, if a matter comes to the knowledge of the High Court and if it is also found that the subordinate court has acted either without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may revise the said order. In the present case notice having been issued in the Civil Revision Petition itself and the matter in the Civil Revision Petition itself having been brought up before the High court, which the High Court has the power to hear and dispose of suo mote, there is no point in going into the merits or demerits of the petition for excusing delay and dismiss the revision petition on the ground of delay, if really there is a case for interference in revision in the main case itself. THErefore, I do not seriously consider the objections raised by the respondent to the petition for excusing the delay and I allow that petition.

(2.) THEN comes the Civil Revision petition itself. The agriculturist debtor in a petition for relief under Act xxxi of 1958 is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, his petition having been dismissed by both the lower courts. The petitioner's case is that he executed a mortgage over the plaint property in favour of the respondent on 22nd March 1954 and took back the same on lease. His further case is that though the recital of consideration in the mortgage deed is Rs. 500/-, a sum of Rs. 400/- alone was paid; and he further alleges that on 25th February 1956 he paid an amount of Rs. 100/- towards the mortgage money. Both these latter contentions have been found against by both the lower courts and therefore, it has to be held that the mortgage amount is Rs. 500/ -.

(3.) THE learned advocate of the respondent has raised two other grounds, regarding the maintainability of the petitioner's appeal to the lower appellate court and regarding the deposit of the subsequent instalment s. I am inclined to think that those objections have no relevancy in this Civil Revision Petition.