GHASITA Vs. BRAHMA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant : Firstly, that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or allow a revision against an order passed under O.21, R.100 of the Civil P.C. and, secondly, that even on the merits the order was without jurisdiction, as the Court below misread and misconstrued the evidence on record and thereby erroneously set aside the order of the execution Court.

(2.) TO appreciate the contentions, it will be relevant to set down a few facts. Smt. Brahma Wati filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,090/- and for possession over two shops. This suit was filed against one Om Prakash. The suit was decreed on the 29th Sept., 1969 and the appeal filed by Om Prakash was dismissed by the District Judge, Bijnor, by his order dated 22nd Oct., 1970. The decree was put in execution and Smt. Brahma Wati got possession over the property in question. The present applicant, Ghasita moved an application under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code claiming that he had been illegally dispossessed and prayed for being put back in possession of the shops in question. This application was allowed by the execution Court. Smt. Brahma Wati filed a revision, which was allowed by the II Additional District Judge, Bijnor by his order dated 8-11-1975, holding that Ghasita had failed to establish his rights in the shops and the objection ought to have been dismissed by the execution Court. This revision is directed against the above order.

(3.) SECTION 115 of the Code is discretionary. It is not necessary for the revisional Court to exercise its jurisdiction in each and every case where it finds an illegality in exercise of jurisdiction. If the Court comes to the conclusion that substantial justice has been done, it may decline to interfere. Having considered the orders passed by the Courts below and the contentions raised at the Bar, I am satisfied that even otherwise this is not a fit case in which the powers of this Court under S.115 of the Code should be exercised. Substantial justice has been done. The decree-holder ought not to be deprived of the fruits of his decree, and particularly by a person, who does not appear to have any right in the property in dispute. In the circumstances of the case, I would decline to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.