HASHMUKHLAL HARJIVANDAS SANGHVI Vs. ISHWARLAL JETHALAL PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 26/08/1985 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court Surat thereby the court had appointed a Commissioner with the direction to prepare a Panchnama of the local inspection in the presence of the parties and there was a further direction that if the premises are found locked the same may be sealed by the Commissioner.

(2.) Mr. K. G. Vakharia the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of the trial court is wholly without jurisdiction and that it is likely to cause irreparable loss and injury to the present petitioner. He therefore urges that the said order be quashed and set arise under the revisional powers of this court under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) Mr. S. M. Shah the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to who are original plaintiffs has urged that the present revision is not maintainable as it does not fall within the scope of sec. 115 of the Code. Mr. Shall has urged that it cannot be said that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order or that the court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or that there is any material irregularity or illegality regarding jurisdiction Mr. Shah has also urged that the present case is not covered either by clause (a) or (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of sec. 115 of the Code. Mr. Vakharia has urged that this is a clear case of the court exercising jurisdiction which it did not have in as much as the trial court has ordered that the suit premises be sealed if it is found locked. Mr. Vakharia has further urged that the present case is clearly covered by clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of sec. 115 of the Code in as much as there is failure of jurisdiction as well as it causes irreparable injury to the present petitioner who is a tenant has been ousted from the suit premises.