Errors in citing legal provisions do not invalidate jurisdiction if the authority retains the power to act legally, affirming the principles of judicial discretion and procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

This is defendants petition against judgment dated 24.11.2022, passed by Additional Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital in Revision No.19/21- 22/46/21-22. By the said judgment, petitioners’ revision against trial court’s order, rejecting their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed. The ground taken for dismissing petitioners’ revision is that the order passed by trial court in a declaratory suit filed under Section 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is not challengeable under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the revision should have been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

2. Learned revisional court has thereafter gone into merits of the case by holding that learned trial court was justified in rejecting petitioners’ application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., as the question of genuineness of documents relied upon by defendants can be decided only after evidence.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that approach adopted by the revisional court is unsustainable, as after holding that revision is not maintainable, revisional court should not have gone into merits of the case. He further submits that when the jurisdiction to entertain revision under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, lies with the Additional Commissioner, then merely because some wrong provision of law is mentioned, the revision cannot be dismissed. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Venkateswarlu & another vs Mada Venkata Subbaiah & another; (2017) 15 SCC 659. Para 3 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

“3. But merely because an application for police protection was filed only under Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent jurisdiction, it cannot be a reason for the High Court to reject it and hold that the application should have been filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The crucial question is whether the executing court has jurisdiction. That is not disputed. The only thing is that an exact provision was not invoked. That by itself shall not be a reason for rejecting the application (see Municipal Corpn., Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal, (1983) 2 SCC 422 and T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, (2008) 5 SCC 633). In case the executing court has the jurisdiction and has otherwise followed the procedure under the Rules, the action has to be upheld. One relevant question is also whether the judgment-debtor has suffered any injury or whether any prejudice has been caused to him. If the answer is in the negative, as in the instant case, the execution must proceed. The impugned judgment is hence set aside, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the executing court is restored.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon another judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Palanisamy vs N. Arumugham & another; 2009 (2) ARC 751. Para 13 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

“13. A contention has been raised that the applications filed by the appellant herein having regard to the decisions of the Madras High Court could not have been entertained which were filed under Section 148 of the Code. Section 148 of the Code is a general provision and Section 149 thereof is special. The first application should have been filed in terms of Section 149 of the code. Once the Court granted time for payment of deficit Court fee within the period specified therefor, it would have been possible to extend the same by the Court in exercise of its power under Section 148 of the