MAN PAL Vs. BIRJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a pltf s appln. in revn.

(2.) The pltf. who is an occupancy tenant, filed a suit against the defts., the opposite parties in this Ct. upon the allegation that they had wrongfully entered upon his land, & upon this ground he sued for recovery of possession & for damages. He also alleged -- & it is not disputed--that he had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defts. on two previous occasions & that on each of these occasions he had had to recover possession through the Ct. The present suit was, therefore, the third which he had had to institute against these defts. & accordingly he also asked for a permanent injunction to restrain the defts. from interfering with his possession. This suit he filed in the civil Ct. A preliminary issue was framed as to whether the civil Ct. or the revenue Ct. had jurisdiction & was answered in favour of the latter. & that finding was upheld by the learned Dist. J. on appeal.

(3.) A preliminary objection was taken in this Ct. that no revn. lies. It is true, & it has repeatedly been laid down, that a Ct. has jurisdiction to decide a ease wrongly as well as rightly, but as was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Joy Chand v. Kamalaksha, 76 I. A. 131 : (A. I. R. (36) 1949 P. C. 239). "Although error in a decision of a subordinate Ct. does not by itself involve that the subordinate Ct. has acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to justify interference in revn. under Sub-section (c) of Section 115, C. P. C.) nevertheless if the erroneous decision results in the subordinate Ct. exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, a case for revn. arises under Sub-section (a) or Sub-section (b) & Sub-section (c) can be ignored." There can be no doubt that the Ct. in this case had jurisdiction to decide whether the suit should have been filed before it or in a revenue Ct. & it had jurisdiction to decide that question erroneously. It has decided that the suit ought to have been filed in a revenue Ct. & it was then bound, as it has in fact done, to direct that the plaint be returned; but if in so directing the Ct's decision on the question of jurisdiction was wrong then it has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law. I am, therefore, of opinion that the preliminary objection fails.