Jharkhand High Court
Kaila Mahli vs Kariwa Mahli on 8 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:10797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P No. 605 of 2022
----
Kaila Mahli, aged about 59 years, son of late Bandhu Mahali, resident of
Village and P.O. Pallani, PS Patratu, District Ramgarh .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.Kariwa Mahli
2.Rati Ram Mahli,
Both nos.1 and 2, sons of Mangra Mahli
3.Charku Mahli, son of late Bigan Mahli
4.Binod Mahli, son of late Ugan Mahli
All are residents of Village and P.O. Pallani, PS Patratu, District
Ramgarh .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the O.P.No.4 :- Mr. K.S. Prakash, Advocate
----
10/08.04.2025 By the impugned order dated 12.05.2022, the learned Court has
disposed of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction holding that it is not
maintainable before that Court in light of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 2011. The jurisdiction will lie before the Rent Controller,
Ramgarh. Aggrieved with that, the petitoiner has filed this petition under Article
227 of the Constitution.
2. In view of the above, it is not in dispute that the power of the High of
revision under article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in the
case when an order passed by the learned competent court in civil jurisdiction,
which is interlocutory in nature, and when the illegality has been found on the
face of the record.
2025:JHHC:10797
3. The provision of section 115 of CPC does reflect that question of
jurisdiction is to be adjudicated under the revisional jurisdiction as per the
provision conferred therein.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Tek
Singh v. Shashi Verma reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1047
wherein the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court was further considered in the
case of D.L.F Housing and Construction Company Private Ltd., New
Delhi v. Sarup Singh and Ors, reported in (1970) 2 SCR 368 wherein at
paragraph no.7 of the said judgment, it has been held as under:
"7. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised
to correct jurisdictional errors only. This is well-settled. In D.L.F.
Housing and Construction Company Private Ltd., New Delhi vs.
Sarup Singh and Ors., reported in (1970) 2 SCR 368 : (AIR 1971
SC 2324) this Court held:
"This position thus seems to be firmly established that
while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not
competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however
gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to
the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a)
and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not
cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was
not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District
Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law
or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in
recording the order that the proceedings under reference be
stayed till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the
proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in
question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to the case in
hand. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" as
used in this clause do not cover either Neutral Citation
2019:JHHC:23129 3 errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to
the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is
reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may, in our
view, relate either to breach of some provision of law or to
material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision,
and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed
formalities have been complied with. The High Court does not
seem to have adverted to the limitation imposed on its power
under Section 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court
2025:JHHC:10797
would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to
come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay
of the reference proceedings pending decision of the appeal,
could hardly justify interference on revision under Section 115 of
the Code when there was no illegality or material irregularity
committed by the learned Additional District Judge in his manner
of dealing with this question. It seems to us that in this matter
the High Court treated the revision virtually as if it was an
appeal."
5. In view of the above, when the issue of jurisdictional error has been
raised, the proper remedy would be to file a revision under Section 115 of the
CPC and not the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this question of jurisdiction
needs to be adjudicated at first and in that view of matter this Court deems it
fit not to entertained revision under its revisional jurisdiction conferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the availability of remedy of
the revision under section 115 of the CPC.
7. As such the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed reserving the
liberty of the petitioner to prefer revision if the petitioner so wishes before the
appropriate forum.
8. This petition is dismissed with that liberty.
9. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/Abha/
