SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 128

V.R.KRISHNA IYER, R.S.PATHAK
Vishesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Shanti Prasad – Respondent


Advocates:
N.K.AGRAWAL, PRAMAD SVARUP

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,
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top