The court highlighted the limitations of the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 CPC and emphasized the need to show jurisdictional error and the interest of justice to call for interference in the impugned order.

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. The revision application stands restored to file.

2. The revision petitioners are the judgment-debtors in Execution Case No. 1 of 2002. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal East, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the objection of the judgment debtor No. 1. The said objection was filed in the Executing Court against the notice of execution of the decree, purportedly under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (shortly, the 'CPC’ hereinafter).

3. I have heard the arguments of Ph. Dolen, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Th. Modhu Singh, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the decree-holder/respondent. I have also perused the impugned order and other documents filed with the revision application and the connected miscellaneous applications.

4. An eviction suit was filed by the respondent in the year 1975. The suit was registered as O.S. No. 14 of 1975. A counter suit was also filed by the petitioners for declaration of their title and partition of the suit property. Their suit was registered as O.S. No. 2 of 1975. The suit of the respondent, which was subsequently re-numbered as 17 of 1984, was decreed whereas the suit of the petitioners was dismissed. Cross-appeals being First Appeal Nos. 1 of 1989 and 2 of 1989 were filed in the High Court. Both the appeals were dismissed, thereby affirming the decree in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the Execution Case No. 2 of 2001 was filed in the Court of District Judge, No. 2, which had passed the decree. After the passing of the decree, the District of Imphal was divided. One district came to be known as Imphal (East) and other one as Imphal (West). Since the defendants/petitioners, as well as the suit property fell in the District of Imphal East, the execution proceeding came to the file of the Court of Addl. District Judge, Manipur East. By this time, the original Court of ADJ No. 2 of Undivided Imphal District was abolished. Consequently, the records were divided according to the territorial jurisdiction.

5. In the year 2002, the decree holders made a prayer before the learned District Judge, Manipur East to withdraw the execution case from the Court of ADJ. Although, the ground of transfer is not clear from the record, but according to the learned Counsel for the D.H., the transfer was sought for as the Court of ADJ was lying vacant. Hence, the prayer of D.H. was acceded by the learned District Judge and the execution case was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Imphal East vide order dated 01.12.2002 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 6 of 2002. Accordingly, the records were sent to the transferee Court whereupon the execution case was re-numbered as Execution Case No. 1 of 2002. On receipt of the decree for execution, notices to the J.Ds. were issued. Objection was filed only by J.D. No. 1 which came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 25.03.2003. It may be mentioned here that in the executing Court, J.D. No. 2 through his legal heirs did not file any objection. Hence, the execution case proceeded ex-parte against J.D. No. 2.

6. Despite the ex-parte proceeding, both JD No. 1 and LRs of J.D. No. 2 challenged the order dated 25.03.2003 by filing this joint revision application. The revision application was dismissed on 24.05.2005 for nonappearance of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the Civil Revision along with condonation petition. These petitions have been numbered as CMA No. 74 of 2005 and 73 of 2005 respectively. Separate orders have been passed for condonation and restoration of revision.

7. Before entering into the merit of the revision application, one technical objection was raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the respondent, which needs to be dealt with. Shri Modhu, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that