KANTI DEVI Vs. SATYA DEO VACLAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE present application is by the plaintiff who filed a suit. In the plaint relief claimed was for declaring the sale -deed to be void and an injunction restraining defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioner. When the said plaint was filed the stamp reporter raised objection with regard to the Court fee paid. This matter was contested by the plaintiff before the learned Sub -Judge 1 being the original Court. The learned Sub -Judge 1 after noticing the controversy and after hearing the party by order dated 21.7.2005 accepted the stamp of the plaintiff petitioner and directed payment of the Court fee accordingly. The plaintiff, thereafter, paid the said court fee as directed by and computed by the Court. Later on it seems suo motu the trial Court refers to a judgment of the Patna High Court of the year 2002 and substantively reviewed his earlier order. This action of the learned Sub - Judge is in challenge.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner I am satisfied that the court below acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing its earlier order. The earlier order was a judicial order passed after full argument. The court applied its mind and came to a finding. Having come to a finding it was accordingly directed. Having been directed the plaintiff paid court fee. The matter ended thus. Now the same very Court does not have the jurisdiction to re -open that question even if he has come to know of some decision being contrary to what he has held. It is well settled that power of review is procedural and/or substantive. In the present case it is a case of substantive review. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. That being so, merely a change of opinion does not give jurisdiction to the trial Court to change the order. Therefore, I am left with no option but to set aside the impugned order and restore the order passed earlier by the learned Sub -Judge.