BANK OF INDIA Vs. KEKI MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in the present revision is the Bank of India which instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of rupees one lac ninty-six thousand and odd against the respondents. The said suit was dismissed in default of the Bank by an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi recorded on January 17, 1980. The Bank then moved an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the restoration of the suit. The case arising out of the said restoration application was numbered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 1980. The said miscellaneous case was also dismissed by an order dated April 21, 1980 on the ground that the plaintiff Bank had failed to take steps to serve the respondents by registered post. Thereupon an application purporting to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved on behalf of the Bank on June 5, 1980. The said application has also been dismissed by the Additional Sub-Judge by his order dated July 5, 1980.

(2.) There has been considerable controversy at the bar as to whether the revision lies against the impugned order dated July 5, 1980. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents opposite parties has strongly contended before me that the application purporting to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been decided after recording evidence. It is submitted by him that it is possible that the decision of the Court may be erroneous on facts but there is no error of jurisdiction in the said order. He has relied on a number of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in support of his contention. It is not necessary to refer to these cases in detail. The position is abundantly clear that if the Court has jurisdiction to decide a case it may render its decision after hearing the parties and recording their respective evidence. The said decision may be erroneous decision in the eyes of the revisional Court. But an application under Section 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure will not lie to remove the said error from the record.

(3.) It is also in controversy between the parties as to whether April 24, 1980 had been fixed for taking steps in the case or April 21, 1980 had been fixed for the purpose. I do not propose to resolve this dispute as it is not necessary for a fair disposal of this revision.