SHAH MOHAMMED ISMAIL Vs. CHHOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under sec. 187 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950, has been filed against an order of confirmation passed by the Additional Collector, Ajmer dated 10.6.59 whereby the original order of the S.D.O. Ajmer under S. 104 of the aforesaid Act passed in favour of the opposite party was confirmed. THIS revision petition was heard by a Division Bench of the Board consisting of Sarva Shri Kanwar Bahadur and R.N. Hawa.[ See 1960 RLW (Revenue Supplement) 101.] These learned Members being enqually divided in opinion as to the order to be made in the case it has come up before me under Sec. 13(2) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well The grounds upon which a revisional court can interfere under sec. 187 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act are completely identical with those laid in sec. 115 C. P. C. This section has been the subject of a number of decisions of the highest Tribunals of the land. The learned counsel for the parties have cited a number of them. I would, however, refer only to the important ones as the law enunciated in them is to a great extent similar. In A.I.R. 1951 Rajasthan 58 it was observed that revision lies where a subordinate court commits an illegality or material irregularity, but it does not lie where there is a mere mistake of law howsoever gross it may be. In A.I.R. 1956 Bombay 323 it was held that where the division of the lower Court is based upon what is substantially appreciation of evidence and inferences have been drawn therefrom then they are binding upon the High Court and are not liable to be challenged in an application under sec. 115 C. P. C. In A.I.R. 1956 Allahabad 232 it was laid down that the finding of the court may be right or wrong but if the court has considered the evidence and come to a conclusion, that finding is binding upon the revisional court. In AIR 1959 Privy Council 156 the scope of revisional jurisdiction was examined at great length. It was observed that the High Court is empowered by sec. 115 C.P.C. to satisfy upon three matters (1) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction, (b) that the case is one in which the court ought to exercise jurisdiction (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the court has not acted illegally, i.e. in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity i.e. by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which immaterial in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. "If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly, from the conclusions of the subordinate court upon questions of fact or law. There can be no justification whatsoever for the view that sec. 115(c) was intended to authorise the High Court to interfere and correct gross and palpable errors of subordinate courts'. In AIR 1956 Patna 290 it was held that there can be no justification for the High Court to interfere under sec. 115 with the order of the court below even if it has committed an error of law, because it cannot correct even gross and palpable errors of subordinate courts. In A. T. R. 1959 Allahabad 463 it was held that the powers of the High Court in revision are not available for correction of errors of law however gross those errors on the merits of the case. "This power of the High Court is only available where the High Court could legitimately hold that the court below............... acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, namely, committed such an error of procedure, a mandatory procedure, and the error had resulted in failure of justice or some such thing". In A.I R. 1953 S. C. 23 the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council referred to above were quoted with approval and it was observed that the errors contemplated in sec. 115 C.P.C. related to material defects of procedure and not to errors of either law or fact after the formalities which the law prescribes have been complied with.