LAXMI KISHORE Vs. HAR PRASAD SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three cases, the trial court recorded certain findings on questions of fact. The trial courts judgment was taken up in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional Court found that the findings of the trial court were vitiated by some error of law, or were not quite correct. It then proceeded to reappraise and re(sic) the evidence for itself and recorded a finding on the same questions of fact. It arrived at a different conclusion. The trial courts' decree was reversed. The losing party came to the High Court in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the submissions was that under Section 25 aforesaid, the court and no jurisdiction to reassess the evidence for itself. It is found that the trial courts findings were vitiated by some error of law it could send the case back after laying own proper legal guidelines. In support, reliance was placed upon a decision of the learned Single Judge in Muneshwar Das Jain v. Prayag Narain Gaur,1979 RCC 301. The learned Single Judge felt that the decision in Muneshwar Das Jain's case requires reconsideration. He accordingly referred the following question of law for decision by a larger Bench:

(2.) Section 25 provides for a revision against the orders of the court of Small Causes. It provides:

(3.) This provision confers a supervisory and not an appellate power. The record can be called for seeing that the decree is according to law. If it is not, the revisional court can pass such orders with respect thereto as it may think fit. This power is conditional on the revisional court finding that the decree or order sought to be revised was not according to law. The phrase 'pass such orders with respect thereto as it thinks fit' has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in several decisions. In Arbind Kumar Singh v. Nand Kishore Prasad, 1968 AIR(SC) 1227, it was held that the clause was wide enough to give power to the revisional court to. admit additional evidence. In Mangallal Chhotabhai Desai v. Chandrakant Motilal,1979 AIR(SC) 37 it was held that the expression authorised the revisional court to issue directions to the parties to the caw. In the State of kerala v. K.M. Charia Abdulla, 1965 AIR(SC) 1585 it was observed that the revisional court has power to pass such orders for rectifying the defect as the revisional court considers, in the circumstances of the case, just and proper.