TAHER ALI Vs. JHUMARMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is by now, a settled law that the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal in a matter under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited and circumscribed to the extent only on the point of jurisdictional error. The position that emerges from various decisions of the Supreme Court it that Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. empowers the High Court to consider on three matters. They are: (1) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction ; (2) that the case is one in which the court have exercised its jurisdiction or that in exercising jurisdiction the court has not acted legally, that is, in branch of some provisions of law, or with material irregularity by omitting some procedures in the course of the trial which is material to affect the ultimate decision and (3) if the High Court is satisfied that there is no error in regard to any of the three matters, it has no power to interfere merely because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate court on questions of fact or law. An erroneous decision on a question of fact or of law reached by the subordinate court which has no relation to the question of jurisdiction of that court cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE legal position was laid down by the Privy Council as early as in 1884 in Rajah Amir Hussain's case. It was held:

(3.) HERE is a case where the revision Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.83 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati in Misc. Case No. 120 of 1981 has approached this Court to revise the order This case has a chequered history. Though the facts are complicated and lengthy, the point of law involved is simple and settled. It is not necessary to narrate the entire history sheet of the case. But some facts which are relevant for disposal of this revision application may be narrated briefly. The opposite party herein as Plaintiff brought a Title Suit No. 77 of 1956 in the court of the then Subordinate Judge, Gauhati, for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the land and houses described la the schedule to the plaint. The land in dispute is measuring about 10 lechas being parts of the two dags, namely, dag No. 2834 and dag No, 2863 of K.P. Patta No. 586 of Gauhati town. Dag No. 2834 contains 8 lechas of land and the remaining 2 lechas is covered by a portion of dag No. 2333 making 10 lechas in total. A two -storied house is also in the schedule of plaint which stands on the said land. The house was included under Holding Nos. 48 and 48A in the record of the than Gauhati Municipality in Ward No, 4 of Gauhati. There is no dispute that the present revision Petitioner was not a party Defendant in the said suit. One Ram Chandra Dey and 6 others were the Defendants in the said suit. Though there were some profarma Defendants as arrayed by the Plaintiff in the plaint no relief was claimed as against them. The suit was dismissed by the trial court whereupon the Plaintiff preferred a First Appeal No. 49 of 1970 to this Court. The said appeal was allowed by this Court on 21.8.79. Consequently, the Title Suit No. 77 of 1956 of the Plaintiff was decreed, In the mean time; the first Defendant Ram Chandra Dey having died, his legal heirs and representatives preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. But it was rejected on 29.10.79 which brought an end to the first round of the battle.