HAZARA SINGH Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure were amended to introduce a proviso to limit and control the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Clause (a) to proviso to Sub-section (i) of Section 115 provided that the High Court would not vary or reverse any order in the course of suit or other proceedings except where it finally disposes of the suit or other proceedings. While Clause (b) of the proviso to the same sub-section provided that if the order passed would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to a party against whom such an order is made, then the High Court could exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The effect and scope of these limitations on the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is the precise question that falls for determination in the present case.

(2.) Before adverting myselt of the legal controversy it may be appropriate to refer to the necessary facts giving rise to the present petition. The plaintiffs had" filed a suit on 23.8.1984 seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the land measuring 139 Kanals 16 Marias owned and possessed by Niranjan Singh, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs. It is also stated that Niranjan Singh had mortgaged the land measuring 33 Kanals 12 Marias with possession to Thakur Singh son of Shri Ram Kishan, father of defendants No. 1 to 5 vide mortgage deed dated 21.5.1970 and 1.6.1976 for a sum of Rs. 72,00/-. The said mortgage was redeemed upon payment of mortgage amount on 3.6.1984 against valid receipt. Niranjan Singh, therefore, came to be in possession of the entire property as owner and the present plaintiffs claiming to be the legal heirs and successors-in interest of said Niranjan Singh instituted the said suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants who took the plea that they are the owners of the land on the basis of a will executed in favour of defendant No. 2 by late Niranjan Singh. This claim of the defendants based or. the will was also disputed by the plaintiffs.