The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction.

1. Petitioner was plaintiff in O.S.No. 1233 of 1993 on the file of the Sub-court, Madurai. The suit was for a direction to the University to pay a sum of Rs.1, 51, 500 with interest at 12% p.a. by way of compensation and damages. As many as five issues were framed by the Sub-court. They are:

(1) Because of the postponement of examination from April to October, 1985 and consequent delayed publication of results, whether the plaintiff has suffered damages?

(2) Whether there was anyirregularity in the correction of answer papers?

(3) Whether there was delay in publication of result and the plaintiff was put to mental suffering?

(4) Did the plaintiff suffer damages consequent to the delay and irregularities?

(5) The quantum of compensation payable. After contested trial, where as many as 21 documents were filed on the side of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed.

2. Without resorting to file an appeal as provided under Section 96 read with Order 41, C.P.C., petitioner has chosen to file this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for an order to set aside the judgment and decree.

3. The Registry has raised an objection on its maintainability on the ground that O.S.No.1233 of 1993 was filed under Order 7, Rule 1, C.P.C. praying to recover money of Rs. 1, 51, 500 together with 12% interest and therefore, there is a doubt regarding the maintainability and hence the matter is posted for maintainability.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made two submissions, namely:

.(1) The learned Subordinate Judge has not applied the legal provisions, and therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the order.

.(2) The lower Court has failed to refer to the various decisions cited by the petitioner, which was given in the form of list of authorities.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel referred to the decision in Annapoorni v. Janaki, 1995 (1) L.W. 141, wherein this Court in a revision under Section 115 against an order passed in E.P., set aside the decree passed in a suit. Justice Srinivasan (as he then was) held that if on the facts of the case there is miscarriage of justice, it should be rectified the moment it comes to the notice of the court. It is only for that reason the power under Section 115 of C.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution was invoked. Learned Judge further went on to say that when this Court finds that a decree suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record owing to non -application of mind by the court, to the relevant principles of law, this court cannot keep silent and allow the decree to be in force, particularly when it cause grave injustice. There can be no doubt whatever that under the Hindu Succession Act, certain persons are designated as Class I heirs and all of them are entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased Hindu. There is no earthly reason for depriving the mother of the deceased, of her legitimate share in the estate which in this case happens to be a moiety. Therefore, in the facts of the case where there was a total non application of law namely Hindu Succession Act, the court came to the conclusion that the only decree which could have been legally passed by the court is to declare the one half share since the mother was a Class-I heir. The learned Judge also held as follows:

“No doubt mere errors of law cannot be corrected under Section 115 of the C.P.C. unless they relate to the jurisdiction of the court. But when the errors are apparent on record, in utter disregard of a substantive provision of law. and there is flagrant violation of justice, this court is entitled to interfere and bound to interfere under Section 115. C.P.C.

When I requested the counsel to point out which is the substantive provision of law that has been disregarded, the counsel was not in a position to point out any substantive provision of law except stating that the University is bound to carry out its statutory duty of conducting th