IN THE HON'BLE HIGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. \ 72008 PETITIONER fDefendantl ,oS^.. ??•"' l-rt-fr-' s->" > ^St^'' eC' Smt. Hem Kunwar, Wd/o Shobhachand Patel, Caste- Aghariya, aged about 60 years, r/o- village Kamlapani, Tehsil- Sarangarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Jagatram, Son of Mayaram, Caste-Aghariya, aged about 50 years, Occupation-Agriculture, r/o village Kamlapani, Tehsil- Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ^O^ CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL ->"%\ —^—^-^—--^ ------ ;*a ~,::^', __DpnrcniiDC ^v ^.-- ^-'-^ -^s^ ^! °'' RESPONDENTS (Plaintiff) HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Defendant CIVIL REVISION No. 187 OF 20(» Smt. Hem Kunwar RESPONDENT Pfaintiff VERSUS : Jagatram REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 1150FTHE CODEOF.CIVIL PROCEDURE (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.t Present : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14/C9/2011) 1. Legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2008, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sarangarh, in Civil Appeal No. 2-B/07 is under assail in this revision. 2. Plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,062/- against defendant/applicant. The trial court dismteed the suit finding inter-alia plaintiff could not establish he was the owner of 75 bags of paddy sold to CG State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (for short 'Federation'), purchase Centre Tausir. 3. First Appeal preferred there-against was allowed by Addl. District Judge, Sarangarh vide judgment and decree impugned. Hence this revision as value of the suit is less than Rs. 25.000/- and Second Appeal is barred under Section 102 of th6 Gode of Civil Procedure. 4. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, leamed counsel appearing for the applicant would submit : the first appeliate couri: has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in the case In its proper perspective and thereby committed an error in allowing plaintiff's appeal. He would further submlt although the receipt of 75 bags of paddy issued by the Federation (Ex. P/2) shows the name of seiler ss Yudhisthir i.e. son of plaintiff but the same was In-fact issued for defendant, inasmuch as, the defendant brought the above paddy in the market by hiring the plaintiffs Tractor and as the goods were handed over to Yudhisthir, his name has been mentioned in the receipt as seller and the above mlstake has been rectified by the Federation by issuing the cheque of its price in defendant's name. Therefore, the judgment and decree of first appellate court deserves to be set aside and judgment and decree of trlal court deserves to be restored. 5. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & Ors. v. Nawab Imdad Jan Bahadur & Ors. and other connected matters, he would submit a jurisdictional question may arise not only when a court acts whotly without jurisdiction but also in a case where jurisdlctional errors are committed while exercising jurisdiction taking into consideration any irrelevant fact or non consideration <rf a relevant fact would involve jurlsdictional issue. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned eounsel appearing for the respondent would submlt: plaintiff was owner of 75 bags of paddy soid to fhe Federation. Receipt (Ex. P/2) has been issued by the Federation showing the name of plaintiff's son 2009 AIRSCW 2289 ''0 as seller. The firet appetlate court, appraiiaUng the evidence of Panchas and documentary evidence (Ex. P/2), has rightty granted decree of amount of price of above paddy in plaintifTs favour. She would further submit : scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and as the appellate court wrtile passing judgment and decree has not committed any jurisdictional illegality, the revislon deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. 7. I have heard the counsei appearing for the parties and pemsed the order impugned as well as records of coyrt below. 8. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to deal with scope and ambit of revisional jurisdtetionat of this court. 9. The Supreme Court in case of Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others , while dealing wlth exceptional power of High Court, has hetd : the 1-l^h Court cannotwhile exercising its jurisdiction underSection 115 ofCPC, correct errors of fact, however gross they may be, or even errors of law. It can only do so when the said errors have relatton to the jurisdiction of the court to try the dispute itself. It is only in cases where the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdteflon not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurjsdlction illegalty or with material Irregularity that the revisional jurisdiction ©fthe High Court can be properly invoked. 'AIR 1966 SC 153 10. The Supreme Court In case of M/s DLF Houslng and Construction Co.(P) Ltd. v. Sarjp Singh and others has held in para 8 of ite judgment as under : "8. The position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction undor s. 115, it te not competent to the High Court to correct errers of fact however gross or even errore of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. tt was not contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exereised a juriscfiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the hligh Court in the proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to the case in hand. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" as used in this clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemptated by this ciause may, in our view, relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of !aw, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. The High Court does not seem to have adverted to the iimitation imposed on its power under s. 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court would have felt inciined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pending decision of the af^eal, could hardly justify interference on revision under s. 115 of the Code when there was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Additional District Judge in his manner of dealing with this quesUon. It seems to us that in this matter the High Court treated the revision virtually as if it was an appeai." 'AIR 1971 SC 2324 11. The Supreme Court in case of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and Another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad has observed in Para 5 as under: "5. In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdictton either illegally or with materiat irregutarity. That being so, ttie High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 ofthe Civil Procedure Code: see the decisions of this Court In Pandurang Dhoni v. Maruti Hari Jadhav (1966) 1 SCR 102=(AIR 1966 SC 153) and D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. New Delhi v. Sarup Singh (1970) 2 SCR 368=(AIR 1971 SC 2324)." 12. Now reverting to the facts of the case, it cannot be disputed that paddy deposit receipt issued by the Federation shows the name of seller as Yudhisthir i.e. son of plaintiff. Plaintiff aiso filed proceedings before the Panchayat convened for settling the dispute between plaintiff and defendant in whlch the Panchas have found the paddy was of the plaintiff. The first appellate court has passed the decree appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. AIR 1973 SC 76 ^5, 13. Considering the facts of the case and the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred hereinabove, 1 do not find any jurisdictfonal illegality in the judgment and decree impugned warranting interference of this court in exercise of its revisional iurisdiction. 14. For the forgoing the instant revislon faits and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarw.'a! Judge Sahu