IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is confined to jurisdictional errors, and findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

JUDGMENT :

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

1. Heard Ms. D. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. R. C. Sancheti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2021 passed in Title Appeal No.06/2008 passed by the Court of the District Judge, Bongaigaon whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2008 passed in Title Suit No.02/2008 by the Court of the Civil Judge, Bongaigaon was affirmed.

3. At this stage, it is also relevant to take note of that the First Appellate Court during the pendency of the appeal have permitted the amendment of the plaint thereby to insert the ground of defaulter taking into account that during the pendency of the appeal, there was an allegation of default in payment of the rent. Vide the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court had also given finding to the effect that the petitioners herein were the defaulters in payment of rent.

4. Before entering into the facts of the case, it would be relevant to note that the Petitioner herein have invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. It is no longer res-integrathatthe revisional jurisdiction is limited in scope inasmuch as the said jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct error of facts, however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. A plain reading of Sub-Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 115 of the Code is in reference to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court not vested in the Court by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in Court. Clause (c) is in relation to exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. Therefore, under Section 115 of the Code a jurisdictional question may arise not only where the Court acts solely without jurisdiction but also in a case where jurisdictional errors are committed while exercising jurisdiction. There may be various facets of jurisdictional error for example the findings arrived at is perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or such findings have been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking material irregularities or such findings so grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand would occasion miscarriage of justice. In other words, interference with an incorrect finding of fact recorded by the Court below for the purpose of exercising revisional jurisdiction must be understood in the context, where such findings are perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or is grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand it would occasion gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Baharsingh reported in (2014) 9 SCC 70, the Supreme Court observed that the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code is required to satisfy itself as regards the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order and cannot exercise its power as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence to a different finding of fact. It is also made clear that this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is not and cannot be equated with the power of re-consideration of all questions of facts as the Court of First Appeal.

5. For appreciating as to whether the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code can be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts of the instant case. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as t