The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors, allowing no reappraisal of evidence unless findings are perverse or unsupported.

ORDER :

1. The present civil revision petition, instituted under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been directed against the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner-defendants was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2004, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bali in Civil Suit No. 85/98, came to be affirmed.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit on 13.07.1987 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,016.21, alleging that land bearing Khasra No. 77 situated at Chamudairy Mertivan belonged to certain Khatedars who had executed a general power of attorney in his favour on 22.06.1984. It was averred that when the plaintiff visited the field on 22.08.1986 for sowing operations, the defendant-petitioners, who were allegedly attempting to trespass upon the land, damaged his tractor on 28.08.1986 and manhandled him, compelling him to lodge a criminal report. The defendants resisted the suit, asserting that they were in lawful possession of the land pursuant to an agreement dated 18.07.1983 executed by the same Khatedars, and that they had already instituted a suit for specific performance, which eventually stood decreed in their favour on 31.08.1994, recognising their possession since July 1983. They further contended that the power of attorney relied upon by the plaintiff had been cancelled on 07.05.1986, rendering his acts of August 1986 wholly unauthorised, and that the suit itself suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned trial court, after framing issues and appreciating oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit partly, awarding Rs. 16,016.31 with interest. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed by the lower appellate court, affirming the findings of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have approached this Court by way of the present civil revision petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.

4. After perusing the material, this Court is of the view that the respondent–Shri Ramlal, as plaintiff, instituted a suit seeking damages for the loss caused to his Massey Ferguson tractor. The foundational averment in the plaint is that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the tractor and was cultivating agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 77, Rakba 177 Bigha, under a valid authority dated 22.06.1984. It is alleged that in the year 1986, during the sowing of bajra, the defendants forcibly trespassed into the field with the intent to take unlawful possession. In the course of the altercation, injuries were caused and the tractor was deliberately damaged.

4.1 An FIR came to be registered under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 447, 427 and 323 IPC . Upon investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for causing injuries and mischief. The tractor was seized and mechanically examined. The plaintiff further placed the vehicle for inspection before one mechanic, Chena Ram, who assessed the damage at Rs. 28,000/-. The detailed bills and supporting documents were produced along with the plaint. The suit was thus premised on the assertion that the defendants intentionally caused damage to the tractor, rendering them liable to compensate not only the repair cost but also the loss suffered during the period the tractor remained non-functional.

4.2 The defendants, in their written statement, raised a plea that the plaintiff had no valid possession over the land. They asserted possession on the basis of an agreement to sell and apprised the Court that the