D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter has come up before me because an objection was raised by the office regarding the maintainability of the C. R. P. filed by the petitioners on the ground that there is no specific order in O. S. No. 6 of 1991 (corresponding to O. S. No. 553/89) on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ranga reddy District. When no specific order is passed by the lower court, the C. R. P. , is not maintainable. The learned counsel represented the matter with the following endorsement: "our contention in the lower court is that the suit itself is not maintainable and the Addl. District Judge, ignoring the contents as once the suit is decreed in terms of compromise, admitted the suit. Against which this C. R. P. is filed and the same is maintainable as no other remedy is left. " When the matter came up before my learned brother Justice Motilal B. Naik on 8-2-1993, he directed that it may be posted before the regular court hearing C. R. Ps. Accordingly the matter has come up before me.

( 2 ) PRIOR to the matter coming before me, the matter appears to have been posted before my learned brother Justice N. D. Patnaik on 12-2-1993 and he directed that the matter may be posted before another learned Judge.

( 3 ) SRI S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the power under S. 115, C. P. C. can be exercised suo motu and it is not necessary that there should be an order, before the power of the High Court can be invoked. He also contends that the popular notion that only an order or a decision can be agitated under S. 115, C. P. C. , is not correct and it is always open to the party to bring to the notice of the Court the irregularity or impropriety in the jurisdiction and hence the C. R. P. is maintainable. He places strong reliance on certain observations reported in S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497.

( 4 ) THE context, in which the present revision is filed, may be stated briefly. Originally O. S. No. 210 of 1988 was filed and it was decreed on 28-2-1989. Subsequently certain proceedings were taken in Revenue Courts. Then some of the parties, who were parties to the earlier suit, filed O. S. No. 6 of 1991 to set aside the decree passed in the earlier suit. The matter appears to have undergone several adjournments as can be seen from the docket orders available at pages 28 to 32 of the material papers. At that stage, the, present petitioners filed this revision on the ground that there is no justification or jurisdiction for the Court entertaining the subsequent suit. It may incidentally be mentioned that in O. S. No. 6 of 1991 issues were settled on 20-7-1992. I have to see whether, at this juncture, the revision filed by the petitioners is maintainable. The language of sub-sec. (1) of S. 115, C. P. C. is very significant. Sub-section (1) of S. 115, C. P. C. reads as follows:-- "115 (1) 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: Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where - (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. " As can be seen from the wording of this section, the power of the High Court to call for the record of any case is contingent upon the fact that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document