RAMESH CHAND Vs. BHALKHN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners appeal before the District Court Hamirpur was dismissed as abated when the petitioners failed to bring on record the legal representatives of one of the deceased The petitioners challenged that order by filing FAO No, 114/1989 in this Court. By order dated 21 -12 -1994 this Court allowed the appeal and directed the parties to appear before the District Court on 24 -1 -1995. However, this Court made it conditional for the restoration of the appeal that the petitioners should pay Rs, 500 as costs to the other side. When the matter was called before the District Judge on 24 -1 -1995, counsel represented the appellants before the District Judge and respondents 1 to 4. The 5th respondent alone remained absent. When the District Judge found that the amount of Rs, 500 directed to be paid as costs by this Court was not paid, he dismissed the appeal. In his order the learned District Judge has pointed out that a representation was made before him on behalf of the appellants that in the letter received from the Advocate who appeared as counsel in this Court there was no mention regarding payment of costs payable to the opposite side. Hence the appellants prayed for time before the District Judge. The District Judge posed a question whether it was open to him to grant time when it had been fixed by this Court. Referring to the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Prem Sagar and others v. Phul Chand and others, AJR 1983, P & H 385, the learned District Judge has held that the direction to pay costs was a condition precedent and it had to be obeyed before the appeal could be considered by him. The learned Judge also pointed out that none of the appellants appeared in person before him and they were only represented by the counsel. This order of the District Judge is challenged before me under section 115 C. P. C.

(2.) At the out -set, I have to point out that there is no error of jurisdiction whatever. It is too well settled that this Court can entertain a petition under section 115, C. P, C. only on fulfillment of any of the conditions set -out therein which read as follows : (a) the court below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) the court failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) the court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. I am unable to persuade myself to bring the order of the learned District Judge within any of the conditions referred to above

(4.) In the circumstances, there is no merit in this Civil Revision and it is dismissed There will be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.