PANDU Vs. BAPUDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is. an application for revision of an order dismissing an objection under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. The non-applicant has argued that there can be no revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., and he has relied upon the ruling in Samsherkhan v. Abdul Sattarlchan A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 290 in which it has been held that this Court will not interfere in revision when another remedy is open to the aggrieved party and where no great injustice or inconvenience would follow from its refusal to act. In any case, it is urged that there has been no material irregularity in the exercise of the lower Court's jurisdiction. This appears to me to be correct. What is objected to in the lower Court's decision is that it has found the loss of a document not proved and has therefore refused to admit se condary evidence. As their Lordships of the Privy Council have laid down in Harripria Debi v. Rukmini Debi [1892] 19 Cal. 438 whether or not sufficient proof of search for, or loss of, an original document, to lay a ground for the admission of secondary evidence, has been given, is a point proper to be decided by the Judge of first instance, and is treated as depending very much on his discretion. In coming to a conclusion of fact that the loss of the document was not proved, it is impossible to say that the lower Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction or has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity.

(2.) I have been referred to the decision in Jogunnessa Bibi v. Satish Chandra A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 633 which lays it down that the expression "acted illegally" in Section 115, Civil P.C., is an indefinite expression which empowers the High Courts to interfere and correct gross and palpable errors of subordinate Courts, the justification for the interference being determined upon the grossness and palpableness of the error complained of and upon the gravity of the injustice resulting from it. I am not prepared to say that there is any gross or palpable error in this case which would justify interference in revision. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, the applicant has another remedy and so there is no grave injustice to be redressed.