An error of law which is so serious as to produce a nullity for lack of jurisdiction can be interfered with by the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC, irrespective of whether such an order was passed by the subordinate court in exercise of discretion under Section 151 of the CPC.

SINGH, J.:-The following question has been referred by the learned single Judge to a larger Bench viz "whether the High Court can interfere sitting in revision with an order passed by a Subordinate Court which is within its jurisdiction," but which is discretionary in nature and if so, under what circumstances?

2. The circumstance which give rise to the reference above may be briefly stated. The Respondent No. 1 was a teacher under Respondent No. 2, and in that capacity he occupied a quarter of the present petitioner. The respondent No. 2 opened a Model School, a private institution, managed by a Governing Body. The petitioner herein with a view to help the respondent No. 2 placed at its disposal some quarters to be used for the purpose of the said school. The condition was that the aforesaid society, respondent No. 2, would pay to the petitioner standard rent plus Municipal taxes, water and electric charges and that the quarters shall be immediately handed over to the petitioner in case the same was no longer required for the purpose for which it was provided or in case the school was closed. The respondent No. 1 occupied a quarter for which he paid rent to the respondent No. 2, who in turn paid rent to the petitioner as agreed upon. Consequent upon the opening of a Central School by the Govt. of India at Sibsagar with a view to facilitate education of the children of the employees of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the private school run by the respondent No. 2 was closed down in July, 1974. The respondent No. 1s service was terminated by Respondent No. 2 with effect from 15-7-1974. He was to hand over the quarter to the petitioner but he refused to do so and continued to occupy the same without even paying rent to the respondent No. 2 or to the petitioner despite several demands in this behalf. On 27-9-74 the respondent No. 1 filed a suit in the court of the Munsiff, Sibsagar, being Title Suit No. 37 of 1974 against Respondent No. 2, Managing Committee members of the said School and the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. In the suit, the petitioner was not a party. He claimed a declaration that the decision of the respondent No. 2 dissolving the school was illegal and that the termination of the services was bad in law. It was also prayed that the defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from giving effect to the decision dissolving the School. He also claimed reinstatement to the post as an assistant teacher in that School with retrospective effect with all benefits from the date of termination. While the suit was pending before the Munsiff. Sibsagar, the petitioner before us filed a suit on 20-5-76 in the same court being Title Suit No. 15 of 1976 against the respondent No. 1 as principal defendant and the respondent No. 2 as a pro forma defendant claiming a decree for eviction of the respondent No. 1 and delivery of khas possession of the quarter and also compensation of Rs. 2, 164. 58 for wrongful occupation of the suit quarter. The defendant No. 1, who is the Respondent No. 1 herein, filed a petition before the Munsiff. Sibsagar, for stay of the subsequent Title Suit No. 15 of 1976 pending disposal of Title Suit No. 37 of 1974. The learned Munsiff by his order dated 1-8-1977 stayed Title Suit No. 15 of 1976 in exercise of the inherent power under Section 151 of the Civil P. C. taking the view that the matters in issue in both the suits are substantially same and that it would be an unnecessary harassment to the respondent No. 1 if the said suit was allowed to proceed pending decision in Title suit No. 37 of 1974. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in T. S. No. 15 of 1976 has come up in revision to this Court.

3. The revision petition was heard by the learned single Judge, B.L. Hansaria. Two questions were formulated by the learned single Judge as arising in the revision, viz. (i) whether the suit can be stayed in exercise of inherent power and (ii) if permissible and