Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Major S. S. Khanna (in both the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
Brig. F. J. Dillon (in both the Appeals), Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 320 and 321 of 1963.
14th August, 1963
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh Advocates of M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi and Co., with him), for Appellant (In both the Appeals); Mr. A. V. Vishwanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Bakshi Shiv Charan Singh and Mr. S. N. Anand, Advocates, with him), for Respondent (In both the Appeals).
-unless that jurisdiction is clearly barred by a special law or an appeal lies therefrom
-it is only in the interest of justice that the revisional Court should interfere
-the High Court is not bound to interfere as held in
-the power under this Section is limited to the keeping of the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. The Section is concerned with jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone involving a refusal to exercise jurisdiction where one exists or an assumption of jurisdiction where none exists and lastly acting with illegality or material irregularity. Where there is no question of jurisdiction in this manner, the decision cannot be corrected in revision under this Section for a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly - S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497; Abbasbhai v. Gulamnabi, AIR 1964 SC 1341; Shankar v. Krishna, AIR 1970 SC 1; K. Balasubramania v. N.M. Sambandammoorthy, AIR 1975 SC 818 = (1975) 1 SCC 242.
-includes civil proceedings other than suits and is not restricted to the entirety of the proceeding in a Civil Court - S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dhillon, AIR 1964 SC 497; Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 406 = (1970) 1 SCR 435.
-this expression refers to the High Court
-where the determination of issues of law depends upon the determination of issues of fact, the issues of law should not be tried as preliminary issue -
-mixed issues of law and fact should not be tried as preliminary issues -
-an issue of jurisdiction may be an issue as preliminary issue and depending on question of fact and, or mixed questions of law and fact, must be decided along with other issues in the case -
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points related to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary and is invoked only when a subordinate court's decision involves a jurisdictional error or irregularity, or acts illegally (!) (!) .
The section concerns jurisdiction alone, and the High Court's power is limited to correcting decisions where there is a clear excess, failure, or illegality of jurisdiction, not errors of law or fact in the decision itself (!) (!) .
The term "case" in Section 115 is comprehensive and includes proceedings other than suits, and it encompasses interlocutory orders relating to rights and obligations, not just final decisions (!) (!) .
The scope of "no appeal lies thereto" is broad, covering decisions that are not final or where no appeal is available, including interlocutory orders that involve jurisdictional issues (!) (!) .
The power under Section 115 is akin to issuing a writ of certiorari—used to quash orders or decisions that are made without jurisdiction or with material irregularity, but not for correcting errors of law or fact where jurisdiction is proper (!) (!) .
The High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding, even if another remedy (such as appeal) exists, provided the decision involves jurisdictional error or irregularity (!) (!) .
The decision of a subordinate court that erroneously denies jurisdiction or acts with material irregularity is a "case" that can be revisited under Section 115, regardless of whether a final decree or order has been passed (!) (!) .
The language "in which no appeal lies thereto" should be interpreted broadly, including decisions on interlocutory issues that affect jurisdiction, not only final judgments or decrees (!) (!) .
The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and should be exercised in the interest of justice, especially where the decision affects rights directly or involves jurisdictional irregularities (!) (!) .
The section does not extend to the power of issuing prerogative writs such as prohibition or mandamus, but is specifically concerned with jurisdictional errors and irregularities in decisions of subordinate courts (!) (!) .
The order or decision must be such that it terminates or substantially affects the rights of the parties, and irregularities or lack of jurisdiction in such decisions are proper grounds for revision (!) (!) .
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction aims to ensure that subordinate courts operate within their lawful jurisdiction and do not act illegally or with material irregularity, rather than to correct errors of law or fact in the decision (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these principles.
Judgment
SHAH. J. : (For himself and Sarkar J.) Brig. F. J. Dillon and Major S. S. Khanna hereinafter called Dillon and Khanna respectively carried on business in partnership as Construction Engineers. They agreed to dissolve the partnership with effect from February 15, 1956. By the deed of dissolution it was agreed that Dillon was to make over all the assets and properties of the partnership as absolute owner and to pay all the debts and to discharge all the liabilities of the partnership and to keep Khanna indemnified against all demands and claims in relation to the partnership business.
2. But the deed did not terminate the disputes between the partners, and Khanna commenced an action against Dillon in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi "for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts . On January 12, 1957, the parties arrived at a compromise (which was incorporated into a decree of the Court) confirming the earlier dissolution of the partnership, subject to a scheme of winding up, under which all out-standings realised from the debtors of the firm and the sale proceeds of certain assets were to go into a banking account to be opened in the joint names of Dillon and Khanna and were to be applied in the first instance to meet the liabilities of the dissolved firm, and the balance in that joint account was to belong to Dillon. Some outstandings of the dissolved partnership were collected by Dillon and were deposited in the joint account of Dillon and Khanna.
3. Dillon filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Delhi for a decree for Rs. 54,250/- with future interest alleging that between the months of May 1957 and November 1957 he had, at the request of Khanna, advanced in three sums an aggregate amount of Rs. 46,000/- as short-term loans which Khanna had promised to but had failed to repay. Khanna pleaded that he did not borrow any loans from Dillon, and that the amounts claimed in the action being advanced, even on the plea of Dillon, out of joint fund belonging to the two partners, action for recovery of those amounts was in law not maintainable.
4. Out of the issues raised by the Trial Court in the suit, the third issue viz:
"Whether this suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not entitled to institute this suit, alleged in paras Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 of the written statement? ,
was at the request of Khanna tried as a preliminary issue, and it was held that the suit being by a partner against another partner of a dissolved firm which was in the process of winding up, and in respect of advances from the partnership assets, was not maintainable.
5. The High Court of Punjab in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction set aside the order, and directed that the suit be heard and disposed of according to law.
6. With special leave this appeal is preferred by Khanna.
7. The jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside the order in exercise of the power under S. 115 Code of Civil Procedure is challenged by Khanna on three grounds:-
(i) that the order did not amount to "a case which has been decided within the meaning of S. 115 Code of Civil Procedure;
(ii) that the decree which may be passed in the suit being subject to appeal to the High Court; the power of the High Court was by the express terms of S. 115 excluded; and
(iii) that the order did not fall within any of the three clauses (a) (b) and (c) of S. 115.
The validity of the argument turn upon the true meaning of S. 115 Code of Civil Procedure, which provides :
"The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears -
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as sit thinks fit.
Th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
