Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SRIRAMULU
PARACHURI MADHAVACHARYULU - Appellant
Versus
MANAM VENKATA RAO - Respondent
CRP No. 241/83
Decided On : 10-03-83
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. P. Ramachandra Reddy, Mr. B. V. Subbaiah, Mr. G. Surynarayana
HELD: The jurisdiction and power of interference of the High Court in a proceeding under sec 115 of the C P C is highly restricted and more so, after the Amending Act 1076 Error of jurisdiction or manifest error of procedure affecting ultimate decision resulting in grave injustice can alone be set right in a proceeding in revision Sec 115 of the code applies to jurisdiction alone irregular exercise of the non-exercise of it or the illegal assumption of it It cannot be directed against conclusion of law in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved No error of fact, however grave can be cured by the High Court in revision, unless an error of law relates to lower Court s jurisdiction If a subordinate Court has jurisdiction to decide a question before It it may decide it rightly or wrongly, whether the question be one of law or fact that would not bring the case within the purview of either of the three clauses of sec 115 (1) of C P C It is only where the error of law or fact has relation to try the dispute that the section would be attracted Sub sec (2) of sec 115 as inserted by the Amendment Act 1976 is a clear bar for exercising the power of revision under Sec 115 C P C Particularly when the appeal against the trial courts order under Order 39 Rules (1) (2) C P C has already been preferred and decided by the lower Appellate courts
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was filed against an order by the District Judge, allowing an appeal that set aside a trial court's order dismissing a petition for interim injunction and vacating an existing injunction (!) .
The dispute involved possession and tenancy rights over agricultural land, with the plaintiffs claiming they leased the land and cultivated crops, while the defendant denied the lease and asserted joint cultivation with his brother (!) (!) .
The trial court had dismissed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction, but the appellate court reversed this decision, granting the injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession or crops (!) .
The revision petitioner argued that the appellate court failed to properly evaluate the facts, particularly the authenticity of revenue records and affidavits, and that the possession was falsely entered in the plaintiffs' favor (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the scope of revision under Section 115 CPC is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or manifest procedural irregularities that cause grave injustice. It clarified that errors of fact or law unrelated to jurisdiction are not subject to revision (!) .
The court noted that since an appeal had already been preferred and decided against the revision petitioner, the high court's power of revision was barred under the amended provisions, especially when the appellate court had jurisdiction and properly exercised it (!) .
The court reiterated that the primary consideration in temporary injunction cases is the actual possession of the plaintiff at the time of the application, and that the appellate court's findings on possession and revenue records were properly evaluated and supported by evidence (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court held that there was no illegal exercise or irregularity in the appellate court's decision, and thus, the revision lacked merit. The petition was dismissed, and directions were given to expedite the trial of the case (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction of the high court under Section 115 is limited, and it cannot interfere with appellate decisions that are within the court's jurisdiction, even if the decision appears incorrect, unless a jurisdictional error or grave procedural irregularity is established (!) (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of factual correctness in possession and revenue records, but reaffirms that questions of law or fact, when decided within jurisdiction, are generally not revisable unless they involve jurisdictional issues (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the court's reasoning that the revision was not maintainable because the appellate court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper, and no jurisdictional or procedural errors were identified.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of civil procedure, is dirtcted against the order passed by the District Judge, ongole, in ATA No. 10/1982, dt. 23-11-1982, allowing the said appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Principal, District Munsif, Chirala in IA. No. 3208/1981, in ATC. No. 55/1981, dated 1-3-1982, dismissing the petition for grant of interim injunction and vacating the interim injunction already granted.
( 2 ) THE revision petitioner herein is the first defendant, the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs and the 4th respondent harein is the second defendant in the suit ATCNo. 55/1981, on the file of the Principal, District munsif, Chirala filed for a declaration that the respondents 1 to 3 herein are entitled to continue in possession of the petition schedule property as cultivating tenants and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner herein and his men from interfering with their possession.
( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs was that the revision petitioner harein leased out the petition schedule land to them in the month of June, 1981 on an appeal rent of Rs. 500/- per acre payable by the end of every year, that they have raised commercial crops in the petition schedule land after investing huge amounts over the same, that the revision petitioner herein due to recent election disputes instigated persons who were inimically disposed towards them and conceived dishonest idea of ignoring the tenancy and carrying away the crops winch were ripe for harvest by using force and violence.
( 4 ) THE revision petitioner herein denied to have leased out the petition schedule lands to the respondents 1 to 3 heroin and contended that along with his brother Keshava Charyulu, he is doing self cultivation, that they have themselves raised crops in the petition schedule land with their money and that the respondents 1 to 3 have no interest whatsoever, in the suit land. Whereas the second defendant pleaded collusion between the plaintiffs and the first defendant and contended that the plaintiffs have been set up by the first defendant the revision petitioner herein.
( 5 ) THE plaintiffs also filed an application for interim injunction along with the plaint. The trial Court, after considering the documents on record and also the affidavits on both the sides, dismissed the petition for grant of temporary injunction by vacating the temporary injunction already granted. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the District Judge and the learned District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the order and decree of the trial Court and allowing I. A. No. 3208/1981, in A. T. C. No. 55/1981, granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 3 herein or carrying away the crops from the petition schedule land.
( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein has urged before me that the learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the facts that the possession regarding the land in question was falsely entered in the names of the plaintiffs in the Revenue records in Exs. A-17 and A-22 and that the affidavits filed on their side have not been properly considered and appreciated.
( 7 ) TT may be stated that the jurisdiction and power of interference of this Court in a proceeding under Section 115 of the CPC is highly restricted and, more so, after the amending Act, 1976. Error of jurisdiction or manifest error of procedure affecting ultimate decision resulting in grave injustice can alone be set right in a proceeding in revision Shaikh Jaffar vs. Mohd. Pasha. Section 115 of the Code applies to jurisdiction alone, irregular exercise or the non-exercise of it, or the illegal assumption of it. It cannot be directed against conclusion of law in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved See Keshar Deo Chamarla vs. Radha Kissen and k. Balasubrahmania v
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
