ORDER :- Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant : Firstly, that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or allow a revision against an order passed under O.21, R.100 of the Civil P.C. and, secondly, that even on the merits the order was without jurisdiction, as the Court below misread and misconstrued the evidence on record and thereby erroneously set aside the order of the execution Court.

2. To appreciate the contentions, it will be relevant to set down a few facts. Smt. Brahma Wati filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,090/- and for possession over two shops. This suit was filed against one Om Prakash. The suit was decreed on the 29th Sept., 1969 and the appeal filed by Om Prakash was dismissed by the District Judge, Bijnor, by his order dated 22nd Oct., 1970. The decree was put in execution and Smt. Brahma Wati got possession over the property in question. The present applicant, Ghasita moved an application under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code claiming that he had been illegally dispossessed and prayed for being put back in possession of the shops in question. This application was allowed by the execution Court. Smt. Brahma Wati filed a revision, which was allowed by the II Additional District Judge, Bijnor by his order dated 8-11-1975, holding that Ghasita had failed to establish his rights in the shops and the objection ought to have been dismissed by the execution Court. This revision is directed against the above order.

3. In support of his contention that the revision was not maintainable, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the provisions of O.21, R.103 of the Code before its amendment by the 1976 Amending Act, which provided for the filing of a suit to establish the right and the words "subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive." It is true that a party other than the judgement-debtor aggrieved by an order made under Rr. 98, 99 or 101 may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the present possession of the property. The execution court in the present case had passed an order under R.101 ordering Ghasita to be restored to possession. Therefore, a suit could be instituted by Smt. Brahma Wati, but it will be noticed that R.103 uses the words "may institute a suit" and not the words "shall institute a suit." The question arises whether in every case where an order is passed under Rr.98, 99 or 101 the only remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a suit or can he take recourse of S.115 of the Code. In my opinion, it will not be correct to hold that the suit is the one and the only remedy in such a case. Any order passed under the Code, which is not amenable to appeal, is revisable under S.115 of the Code, provided the requirements of the said Section are fulfilled. If the order is without jurisdiction or if the order has been passed as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction or where the order has been passed with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction the Court can certainly interfere with the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction has been given to a superior Court for the purpose of seeing that the lower Courts keep within bounds of their jurisdiction and do not in the course of proceedings pass orders, which are palpable erroneous because of wrong exercise of jurisdiction. Why should a party be relegated to a long drawn process of a suit when the error can be corrected by the superior Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction ? If an order is patently erroneous because of an illegal exercise of jurisdiction, it ought to be corrected at the first opportunity. Why should the matter be left to be corrected in the suit for in the appeal therefrom. Of course, it goes without saying that the order can be revised, provided it comes within the four corners of S.115 of the Code. Where the case is decided without considering the material placed or in disregard of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document