( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the original plaintiff who instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 1669/86 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Baroda against the present respondents who are defendants challenging the legality and validity of the notice of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation issued in September 1986 under Section 260 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 The parties are hereinafter referred to as arraigned in the Trial Court in the plaint.

( 2 ) BY virtue of the aforesaid notice of the Corporation the plaintiffs were called upon to the remove the wooden cabin constructed on the land bearing Survey No. 122/2. The plaintiff filed the suit challenging the action of the issuance of the said notice of the Corporation for perpetual injuction. Plaintiff inter alia contended that he is one of the co-owners of the manager of the suit property situated if the Sim Harni Road Vododara and he had constructed the wooden cabin in the said land. He also contended that in the previous litigation in respect of the very land it was held by this court also that putting up wooden cabin did not amount to creation of building and no prior permission for construction was required and therefore the impugned notice issued by the Corporation under Section 260 is illegal.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff applied for interlocutary injunction by giving an application Exh. 5 along with the suit which came to be rejected after hearing the parties. The defendants case is that the suit land is covered under the Town Planning Scheme No. 7 which has become final and plaintiff was allotted other final plots in liev of suit land bearing Survey No. 122 and therefore he has no right to continue in the suit land. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 788 of 1995 challenging the Town Planning Scheme and having failed to obtain interlocutary order in the said suit in his favour and with a view to retain the possession of the suit land the plaintiff has filed this suit to defend his illegal construction of the wooden cabin on the suit land. Therefore according to the case of the Corporation the notice came to be issued under Section 260 (1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (BPMC Act ). After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances the Trial Court was pleased to reject the application Exh. 5

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court the original plaintiff carried the matter in appeal by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1993 before the District Court at Baroda which also came to be dismissed. Thus the interlocutary injuction application submitted by the plaintiff at Exh. 5 before the Trial Court was rejected and it came to be confirmed by the District Court. Thus both Courts have concurrently held against the petitioner original-plaintiff on facts. Hence this revision under Section 115 of the Code.

( 5 ) AT the threshold it may be stated that the powers of this Court under Section 115 of the Code are very much circumscribed. The jurisdictional sweep in a revision under Section 115 is very much limited. It is a settled proposition of law that this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order of the Trial Court if the case does not fall within the purview of Sec. 115 providing a right to file a revision under the Code. If the finding made by the lower Court is neither manifestly perverse nor erroneous and not attracting the provision of Section 115 High Court should not substitute its finding for the one reached by the lower Court on a reappraisal of the evidence.

( 6 ) SECTION 115 empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters as per the settled proposition of law: 1 That the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; 2 That the case is one in which the Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction; 3 That in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally that is in breach of any provisions of law or with material irregularity that i