9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the case of Liladbar v. Firm, Radhakishan Ramsahaya A.I.R. 1946 Nag. 5 was rightly decided regarding the revisability of orders amending or refusing to amend pleadings. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain revisions related to: - Interpretation of a remand order by a lower court. - Amendment of pleadings. - Framing of issues. 3. Discretion of the High Court in entertaining such revisions. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Revisability of Orders Amending or Refusing to Amend Pleadings The court affirmed that the decision in Liladbar v. Firm, Radhakishan Ramsahaya was correct. The judgment emphasized that an order amending or refusing to amend a pleading is open to revision. This is grounded in the principle that such orders can significantly impact the rights of the parties and the course of litigation. The court reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) includes the power to interfere with interlocutory orders, provided the conditions under Section 115 are met. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain Revisions The court addressed three sub-issues under this heading: (i) Interpretation of a Remand Order: The court held that the trial court has the jurisdiction to interpret a remand order. However, if the trial court's interpretation is patently wrong or unjustified, it amounts to acting with material irregularity. The High Court, therefore, has the jurisdiction to entertain a revision and correct such errors. (ii) Amendment of Pleadings: The court noted that under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, the trial court has the discretion to allow or refuse amendments to pleadings. This discretion must be exercised judicially and in accordance with established principles. If the trial court's decision violates these principles or results in material irregularity, the High Court can entertain a revision. The judgment cited several precedents to support this view, including Charan Das v. Amir Khan and Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnoung. (iii) Framing of Issues: The court emphasized that the framing of issues is governed by Order 14 of the CPC. If a trial court refuses to frame an issue that arises from the material propositions affirmed by one party and denied by the other, it is not exercising its jurisdiction correctly. Conversely, if it frames irrelevant issues, it acts in excess of its jurisdiction. In both scenarios, the High Court can intervene through its revisional jurisdiction to ensure proper administration of justice. Issue 3: Discretion of the High Court in Entertaining Revisions The court concluded that no hard and fast rule should be laid down regarding the High Court's discretion to entertain revisions. Each case should be decided based on its facts and circumstances. The court should exercise its discretion judicially and according to established principles. The judgment highlighted that while the revisional jurisdiction should not be used to convert revisions into appeals, it should also not be so narrowly construed as to prevent the correction of patent injustices. Additional Observations: Pollock, J.: Pollock, J. agreed with the proposed answers but added that the term "entertain revisions" should be clarified. He emphasized that the High Court's power to interfere in revisions depends on whether the subordinate court's actions fall under Clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 115. He also noted that a clear distinction should be made between errors of procedure and errors of law. Hemeon, J.: Hemeon, J. concurred with the answers and observations of Padhye, J. and Pollock, J., adding no further comments. Conclusion: The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. It affirmed the revisability of orders amending or refusing to amend pleadings, clarified the High Court's jurisdiction in interpreting remand orders, amending pleadings, and framing issues, and emphasized the need for judicial discretion in entertaining revisions. The judgment underscored the importance of balancing the need to correct procedural irregularities with the necessity of avoiding undue interference in interlocutory matters.
|
