JHUNTA RAM @ SURAJ NARAIN Vs. SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The purpose behind Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to provide the means to an aggrieved party to obtain rectification of a non-appealable order in exceptional circumstances. In order to maintain a petition for revision there must be an error relating to jurisdiction committed by the lower court either by way of assumption of jurisdiction which it does not have, or failure to exercise jurisdiction which it has, or by exercising its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court cannot, in the exercise of its revisional powers, attack finding of fact of the subordinate court or substitute its own appreciation of evidence for that of the primary court.

(2.) In the case on hand the defendant-petitioner was assailed the validity of the decree and judgment dated Aug. 29, 1995 passed in a suit for possession under the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted suit for possession stating in the plaint that he was a tenant in one room of the Haveli Bhura Darji and was dispossessed forcibly by the defendant-petitioner on March 11, 1975. The defendant-petitioner denied the allegations. As many as seven issues were framed out of the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff examined six witnesses whereas the defendant produced eight witnesses. The learned trial court after appreciating the statements of the witnesses decreed the suit.

(3.) After giving my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and after perusing the record I am of the view that no jurisdictional error was committed by the learned trial court while passing the decree and judgment impugned and if the decree is allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice. Statement of plaintiff Surendra Mohan P.W. was supported by FIR (Ex.P.6), charge-sheet (Ex.P.7) and judgment of criminal court (Ex.P.8) whereby the defendant-petitioner was charged having forcibly entered the disputed property and was convicted under Sec. 156 Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 though he was acquitted by the appellate court in appeal on technical grounds but the trial Court after scanning the testimony of the other witnesses as well as documents which include rent deed and receipts observed that the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed on March 11, 1975 from the disputed premises.