The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to administer substantial justice in the absence of specific statutory provisions.

P.K. Musahary, J.

1. This appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(w) read with Order 47 Rule 7 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 22.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shillong in Review Application No. 2(H) 2007 out of order dated 3.12.2007 in FAO No. 2(H) 2006 passed by the said Court.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The Respondent instituted a Title Suit against one Shyam Sundar Sharma and Shri Ratan Sarkar as well as against the present Appellant being TS Case No. 29(H) 2004. The Respondent also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for interim injunction to restrain the Appellant from receiving rent from Shyam Sundar Sharma and Ratan Sarkar. In the aforesaid petition, summons were issued to the aforesaid persons including the Appellant asking them to file show cause. The Appellant as party Respondent No. 3 filed show cause reply on 30.3.2005 and the matter was posted for hearing on 20.9.2005 but the Appellant's counsel filed a petition being 372/2005 seeking adjournment on ground of personal difficulties and prayed for two days time for hearing with due intimation to the counsel for the Respondent. The learned Assistant District Judge without considering the aforesaid petition rejected the same and proceeded ex-parte and made the interim injunction order dated 11.3.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 35(H) 2005 and also order dated 22.12.2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 22(H) 2004 absolute.

The Appellant filed an application on 3.12.2005 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the aforesaid order dated 20.9.2005. The learned Assistant District Judge, upon hearing the parties rejected the said application dated 3.12.2005 vide his order dated 22.12.2005 on the ground that the impugned order dated 20.9.2005 is not a decree and, as such, the provision of Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted.

Against this order dated 22.12.2005, the Appellant preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 Code of Civil Procedure before the learned District Judge, Shillong. The learned Additional District Judge, Shillong after hearing the parties, came to a conclusion that the appeal may be converted to a revision and consequently in exercise of revisional power of a District Judge set aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 35(H) 2005 and directed the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong to hear the parties on Misc. Case No. 22(H) 2004 and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Respondent then filed a review application being No. 2(H) 2007 before the Additional District Judge who, after hearing the parties set aside his own order dated 3.12.2007 passed in FAO No. 2(H) 2007 aforesaid holding that power of revision under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure lies exclusively with the High Court and not with any sub-ordinate courts including the Court of District Judge or the Additional District Judge. This is how the present Appellant has come before this Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 22.8.2008.

2. Heard Mr. R. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondent without any step although notice was duly served on him.

3. Mr. R. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Appellant fairly submits that under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, the power of revision can be invoked exclusively by the High Court only and not by any other courts subordinate to it. It is also not disputed by him that the learned Additional District Judge can review his own order if it was passed in exercise of any power not entrusted with him and he has rightly reviewed the same but the learned Additional District Judge did not pass any order giving any relief to the Appellant in respect of the order dated 20.9.2005 by which the learned Assi