SHEO SAHAI Vs. GHASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision which is directed against an order of the Tehsildar Jamwa-ramgarh, dated 28.8.1956 raises a question of law, which is easy to state, but a little difficult to answer. It has arisen in the following circumstances. In a suit which was pending in the court of the Tehsildar relating to the recovery of arrears of rent the plea taken by the defendants was that they had discharged their liability by paying rent to a third person who had given himself out to be the landlord. The third person was impleaded as a party to the suit. When he stepped into the witness-box in order to give evidence on behalf of the defendants the plaintiffs who were in possession of a certain document executed by him wished to confront him with it. The learned Tehsildar did not permit them to do so on the short ground that under Order 13, Rule 1, it was incumbent upon them to produce this document at the first hearing of the suit and as they had failed to do so it could not be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause was shown to the satisfaction of the court for its non-production in compliance with the requirement of rule 1.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also examined the record. A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite-party to the effect that this application in revision was not maintainable as the aggrieved party could lodge an appeal against the order of the learned Tehsildar. Failure on their part to do so debarred them from pursuing their remedy by way of revision. This preliminary objection is clearly untenable as the Board has consistently taken the view that in cases where gross injustice is likely to occur owing to failure on the part of a court to construe and apply the provisions of law correctly the Board should in the exercise of its revisional powers interfere in order to avoid that result. Each case would depend upon its own facts and it is discretionary with the Board whether or not to interfere in a particular case. The discretion, as we have pointed out above, is exercised in cases where there has been either a violation of express provisions of the law which is likely to defeat the ends of justice or gross injustice has taken place owing to failure on the part of a court to construe the provisions of law and apply them correctly. The general rule that special and extraordinary powers of revision will not be exercised in favour of interference, where another remedy is open to a party which it has failed to pursue is not an inflexible one.