BHANDARI, C.J.—In the suit filed by Harakchand and others-plaintiffs the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalore refused to admit in evidence a document produced by the plaintiffs on the ground that the document was not registered. The plaintiffs have filed a revision application under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order passed by the trial court. This revision application was placed for hearing before one of us sitting as a single Judge. A preliminary objection was raised that the order passed by the trial court cannot be revised under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge referred the case to the Division Bench after noticing the conflict of judicial opinion in this respect. The Division Bench has referred the matter to the Full Bench. In this way this case has come before us.

2. Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows:

"115. The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,

the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."

3. The main point to be decided in this case is whether the case of the plaintiff falls within cl.(c) of sec. 115. But it would not be out of place to briefly survey the law on the other two clauses so that the proper scope of all the three clauses may be appreciated. Clauses (a) and (b) deal with exercise of jurisdiction not vested in a court of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction so vested. The power of the High Court to interfere in revision in such cases is part of the jurisdiction vested in the highest court in the State to regulate the proceedings in a subordinate court so that there may not be illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a court or failure to exercise jurisdiction which is vested in a court. In England such jurisdiction is exercised by issuing writ of certiorari or prohibition as the case may be. In a way the juris* diction which could be exercised in England by issuing a writ of certiorari or prohibition with respect to the orders of the Tribunals exercising judicial or quasi judicial jurisdiction is to be exercised to a limited extent by the High Court under sec. 115 C. P. C. with regard to the orders of the subordinate courts. This is part of the superintending power of the High Court. For the legislative history of sec. 115 reference may be made to Shiva Nathaji Applicant vs. JomaKashinath Opponents (1). Before the framing of the Constitution only the three chartered High Courts could issue writs in the nature of certiorari or prohibition, but every High Court in India was invested with the authority to revise the order passed by subordinate courts under sec. 115 C. P. C. In Major S. S. Khanna Appellant vs. Brig. F.J. Dhillon, Respondent (2) Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) observed as follows:

"The power which this section confers is clearly of the nature of a proceeding on a writ of certiorari. But it differs from that power in many ways......The power given by sec. 115 of the Code is clearly limited to the keeping of the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It does not comprehend the power exercisable under the writ of prohibition or mandamus. It is also not a full power of certiorari inasmuch as it arises only in a case of jurisdiction and not in a case of error. It has been ruled by the Judicial Committee and also by this Court that the section is concerned with jurisdiction and juris-diction alone involving a refusal to exercise jurisdiction where one exists or an assumption of jurisdiction where none exists and lastly acting with illegality or material irregularity. Where there is no question of jurisdiction in this man

Click Here to Read the rest of this document