Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND K.K. MATHEW, JJ.
Shri M. L. Sethi, Appellant
Versus
Shri R. P. Kapur, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 665 (N) of 1972, D/- 19-7-1972.
-this Section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters, (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to excercise jurisdiction, and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted, illegally, that is in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing same error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the High Court is satisfied on these three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate Court on questions of fact or law - Shri M.L. Sethi v. Shri R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379; Pandurang v. Maruti Hari Jadhar, AIR 1966 SC 153; M/s. D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2334; Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 76; Baldevdas v. Filmistan Distributors, AIR 1970 SC 406; Delhi Municipality v. Suresh Chandra, AIR 1976 SC 2621; Chaggan Lal v. Indore Municipality, AIR 1977 SC 1555. There can be no doubt that under this Section a revision application can lie before the High Court from an order made by a subordinate Court only if no appeal lies from that order to the High Court. The words of limitation used in this Section are “in which no appeal lies thereto” and these words clearly mean that no appeal must lie to the High Court from the order sought to be revised, because an appeal is a much larger remedy than a revision application and if no appeal lies, that would afford sufficient relief and there would be no reason or justification for invoking the revisional jurisdiction - Vidya Vati v. Devi Das, AIR 1977 SC 397 = (1977) 2 SCR 182.
-an erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate Court which has no relation to questions of jurisdiction of that Court, cannot be corrected by the High Court under this Section - Shri M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379; Pandurang Dhondi v. Maruti Hari Jadav, AIR 1966 SC 153. Erroneous decision by itself is no ground for revision, but where the erroneous decision results in the lower Court failing to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law, revision lies - Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1959 SC 492.
-the word jurisdiction is a verbal cost of many colours. Jurisdiction originally seems to have had the meaning “to enter upon the enquiry in question”. But now the difference between jurisdictional error and error of law within jurisdiction has been put almost to vanishing point. Any error of law can be reckoned as jurisdictional. This comes perilously close to saying that there is jurisdiction if the decision is right in law but none if it is wrong. Whether there is excess of jurisdiction or merely error within jurisdiction can be determined only by construing the empowering statute, which will give little guidance. It is really a question of how much latitude the Court is prepared to allow - M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379. Where the subordinate Court assumes a jurisdiction not-vested in it by law or fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, revision under clauses (a) and (b) of this Section lies, as held in Rama Iyer v. Sundaresha, AIR 1966 SC 1431; Roshan Lal v. Ishwar, AIR 1962 SC 647; Choube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1959 SC 492; Jashwantrai v. Nandlal, AIR 1965 SC 1419; Manindra Land and Building Corporation v. Bhutnath Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 1336 = (1964) 3 SCR 495.
Judgment
MATHEW, J. :- This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of the High Court of Allahabad allowing an application for revision of orders passed by the Civil Judge, Saharanpur, directing discovery of documents by the respondent and dismissing an application by him for permission to sue in forma pauperis.
2. The respondent filed a suit in forma pauperis on April 20, 1962, against the appellant and his wife for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.7,48,000/- for malicious prosecution. Notice of the petition to sue in forma pauperis was given to the State Government and the appellant under Order 33, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. Both the Government and the appellant filed objections stating that the respondent is not a pauper. The appellant thereafter filed an application for discovery of documents from the respondent for proving that the respondent is not a pauper. The Court passed an order on February 23, 1970, directing the respondent to discover on affidavit, the documents relating to the bank accounts of the respondent, namely, pass books, cheque books, counterfoils, etc., from March 1, 1963, to the date of filing the affidavit of discovery, as also the documents in respect of the properties held by him and the personal accounts maintained by him. The respondent was to file the affidavit of discovery on March 8, 1970. It was specifically stated that no extension of time will be allowed for filing the affidavit and that the discovery should be made within the time. The respondent did not file the affidavit in pursuance to the order. On March 31, 1970, he moved an application stating that he wants to file a revision against the order dated February 23, 1970, before the High Court and that two months time may be allowed for the purpose. The Court rejected the application for time on April 4, 1970, on the ground that the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was pending for the last seven years and that the respondent had ample time for filing the revision if he was diligent in the matter. The respondent s counsel then moved another application on the same day stating that the respondent wants to adduce evidence and that since he had not come to Court in the expectation that his earlier application dated March 31, 1970, for adjournment would be allowed, the case may be adjourned. This application was also rejected by the Court. And as counsel for the respondent reported no instruction and as there was no evidence to show that the respondent was a pauper, the Court dismissed the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis and directed the respondent to pay the court fee within 15 days.
3. The respondent challenged the order directing discovery of documents passed on February 23, 1970, and that dismissing his application for permission to sue in forma pauperis passed on April 4, 1970, in revision before the High Court.
The High Court held that since the proceedings under rules 6 and 7 of Order 33 are summary in character, the "sophisticated procedure" for discovery should not have been resorted to by the appellant, that the documents of which discovery was sought were not specified in the application of the appellant and, therefore, the application for discovery was bad, that the enquiry under Rules 6 and 7 of Order 33 was primarily a matter between the respondent and the State Government and that the trial Court should not have adopted the procedure for discovery and inspection at the instance of a private party like the appellant. The Court further held that the trial Court acted with material irregularly as it did not consider the question of the necessity for discovery of the documents or the relevancy of the documents of which discovery was sought and also for the reason that, in ordering discovery of the documents relating to personal accounts, and pass books, it overlooked the right of the respondent to claim privilege. And as regards the order passed on April 4, 1970, dismissing the app
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
