JUDGMENT

PATHAK, J. :— This appeal by special leave and the four associated special leave petitions question the dismissal by the High Court of Allahabad of five revision petitions filed under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that they are not maintainable.

2. Although the five cases before us must be considered in the context of their individual facts it is desirable to appreciate the relevant jurisdictional structure of revisional power enjoyed by the High Court from time to time. In 1970, the provisions of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, read:

"115. Revision. 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 it thinks fit."

3. A schematic analysis of the judicial hierarchy within a State indicates that the High Court, as the apex court in the hierarchy, has been entrusted, not only with the supreme appellate power exercised within the State but also, by virtue of Section 115, the power to remove, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, any jurisdictional error committed by a subordinate court in those cases where the error cannot be corrected by resort to its appellate jurisdiction. The two salient features of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 are on the one hand, the closely limited grounds on which the court is permitted to interfere and on the other, the wide expanse of discretion available to the court, when it decides to interfere, in making an appropriate order. The intent is that so serious an error as one of jurisdiction, if committed by a subordinate court, should not remain uncorrected, and should be removed and the record healed of the infirmity by an order shaped to reinstate the proceeding within the proper jurisdictional confines of the subordinate court. It is a power of superintendence, and fittingly it has been conferred in terms enabling the High Court to exercise it, not only when moved by an aggrieved person, but also suo motu. While considering the nature and scope of the revisional jurisdiction, it is necessary however, to advert to the prime circumstance that in civil cases the jurisdiction has been entrusted to the highest court of the State, demonstrating that broadly the order under Sec. 115 is to be regarded, in the absence of anything else, as a final order within the state judiciary.

4. From its inception there was increasing resort to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 115. Over the Years the volume of litigation reached an insupportable point in the pending docket of the Court. To alleviare the burden, a pattern of decentralisation of revisional power was adopted and Section 115 was amended by successive State amendments, each attempting to close the gap left by its predecessor. In its meandering course from stage to stage, this is how Section 115 read:

1. From 5th April, 1970:

5. By virtue of Section 3, U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 Sec. 115 was amended and the result was that:

(i) The High Court had exclusive jurisdiction under Section had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 115 in a case arising out of an original suit of the value of Rs. 20,000 and above; and

(ii) The High Court and the District Court had jurisdiction under Sec. 115 concurrently in other cases.

2. From 20th September, 1972:

6. Section 6, U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 amended Section 115 further with effect from 20th September, 1972. Later, Section 115 was amended by Section 2, U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 in its application to Uttar Pradesh, retrospectively with effect from 20th September, 1972. In consequence:

(i) The High Court possessed exc