2011 (2) TMI 1581 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Powers of the revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Maintainability of a revision under Section 115 CPC when no appeal lies under Section 102 CPC.
3. Examination of the appellate court's judgment regarding the plaintiff's title to the property and the alleged entrustment of the crop to the first defendant.
4. Determination of whether the appellate court's findings were perverse and warranted interference by the revisional court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Powers of the Revisional Court under Section 115 CPC:
The primary consideration in this case is the power of the revisional court under Section 115 CPC. The revisional jurisdiction has a long legislative history, starting from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, which did not contain any provision for revisional jurisdiction. The High Courts were later given superintendence over subordinate courts under the Charter Act, 1861. Section 115 CPC, as it stands today, was incorporated from Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. The amendments in 1976, 1999, and 2002 have further refined the revisional jurisdiction, adding explanations and provisos to clarify its scope.

2. Maintainability of a Revision under Section 115 CPC:
The revision arises from the judgment in A.S. No. 59 of 2004, which is an appeal from the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 607 of 1999. Section 102 CPC proscribes a second appeal for suits involving recovery of money not exceeding Rs. 25,000. The value of the suit was Rs. 11,500, thus barring a second appeal. The plaintiff argued that a revision is maintainable under Section 115 CPC when no appeal lies. The court examined whether the impugned order finally disposed of the suit or proceeding, as required by the proviso to Section 115(1) CPC. The court concluded that the revision is maintainable because the appellate court's judgment finally disposed of the suit, satisfying the conditions under Section 115(1) CPC.

3. Examination of the Appellate Court's Judgment:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the land and alleged that the first defendant, under the instigation of the second defendant, appropriated 25 bags of paddy. The trial court granted a decree for Rs. 8,500, but the appellate court reversed this, questioning the plaintiff's title and the alleged entrustment. The revisional court scrutinized the evidence, including the pattadar passbook (Ex. A.4) and receipts from the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (Ex. A.5). The court found that the appellate court erred in rejecting these documents and concluded that the plaintiff had sufficiently established his title and the entrustment of the crop to the first defendant.

4. Determination of Perverse Findings:
The revisional court noted that the appellate court's findings were not just erroneous but perverse, as they ignored substantial evidence. The court referred to precedents where revisional jurisdiction was exercised to correct perverse findings. The court emphasized the maxim "Ubi jus ibi remedium," which means "where there is a right, there is a remedy," to justify its interference. The court concluded that the appellate court's judgment was perverse and deserved to be rectified.

Conclusion:
The revision was found to be meritorious and was allowed. The judgment of the appellate court was set aside, and the trial court's judgment was restored. The plaintiff was granted a decree against the first defendant for Rs. 8,500 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization. No order as to costs was made.