1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRA No. 24/2010 Badrilal Shankarlal Akole Vs. Lalchand s/o Shankarlal Akole and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. J.B. Kasat,Adv. for the applicant. Mr. Deshpande, Adv. for the respondent no.1. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7th JUNE 2010. Heard. 1] The dismissal of M.J.C. No. 1/2001 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Achalpur, by which rejected the application for mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. the applicant Badrilal challenged the same in Regular Civil Appeal No.31/004. The learned District Judge-2, Achalpur by order dated 14th August 2008 did not find any mistake in the order of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Achalpur in rejecting the prayer and consequently, dismissed the appeal, the same is the subject of civil revision application. 2] Learned counsel vehemently submits that by erroneous approach learned Civil Judge Senior Division and learned District Judge-2 dismissed the claim. The observation that the burden is on the applicant Badrilal to prove the earning from the field, is misplaced. 2 3] The controversy revolves to mesne profits taking yield from the agricultural field. The dispute being between two brothers for partition of the property. The 7/12 extract, to indicate that there was good yield was tendered by the applicant. It was observed by the learned Judge in paragraph 11 that 7/12 extract at Exhibit 33 for field No.77/2 shows that for the year 1987-88 and 1988- 89, hybrid jawa, tur and cotton crops were sown, however, for rest of years field was barren. Learned Judge observed that even if it is construed/assume for the said period, respondent no.1 had cultivated the field, but in the absence of fertile quality of the field and crops taken by respondent no.1 and in the absence of sale receipt about the quantity and value of crops, the Court could not come to a definite and positive conclusion that respondent no.1 had earned Rs. one lakh per year, from the agricultural field. 4] The powers, in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are very limited. It is for the appellant to demonstrate that there is material irregularity or illegality in the order and it not open to the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, to question the findings of fact recorded by a subordinate Court. Section 115 applies to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, i. e. questions regarding the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or the 3 illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a Court and is not directed against conclusion of law or fact in which questions of jurisdiction are not involved. 5] In the light of this situation, on perusal of both the judgments, I find that there is no eventuality in the judgment of learned Judge while coming to the conclusion against the appellant. It was the primarily responsibility of the appellant to establish the earning yield from the agricultural field which he failed. The burden would not shift to respondent. The question of fact need not be entertained in the civil revision application. It lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.