HANSDEO SINGH Vs. GHURA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of an order dated 20-7-1981.

(2.) By this order, the court below allowed defendant No. 1 to file the written statement at the end of the trial. I must say in the beginning that the court below ought not to have extended the time for filing written statement. However, in this case the only point which arises for determination is: whether the court has acted without jurisdiction? I must answer this question in the negative. The Court has jurisdiction to allow defendant No. 1 to file the written statement at the end of the trial. As such it is not a question of jurisdictional error. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the error of the fact or law, however, gross may be unless such errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself, cannot be corrected (see Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 153). The Supreme Court has also held in Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav (AIR 1966 SC 153) that the High Court cannot interfere while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115, correct errors of fact, however, gross they may be, or even errors of law. The Supreme Court further held that it can only do so when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Relying on this decision of the Supreme Court I hold that merely because the court allowed acceptance of the written statement at the end of the trial this fact itself is not a question of jurisdictional error. The action of the court below may be improper but the question of propriety cannot be looked into while exercising the civil revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) The High Court while exercising civil revisional jurisdiction can decide the question if the court below has acted without jurisdiction. In my opinion, the civil revision itself is not maintainable under the proviso (a) to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. In my opinion, by this order the court below has not finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding and in such a case the High Court shall not interfere with the order in question. I, therefore, hold that proviso (a) of Section 115 bars the jurisdiction of the High Court. Proviso (b) of Section 11'5 does not apply to this case as by allowing defendant No. 1 to file the written statement it will cause no irreparable injury to the plaintiff nor there will be any occasion of failure of justice. The plaintiff is entitled to file a fresh amended plaint at this stage and lead evidence to rebut the allegations mentioned in the written statement of; defendant No. 1.