Suo motu revisional power validly set aside an appellate order passed after transfer of jurisdiction and without authority.

Where appellate jurisdiction for the district had already been transferred and that change was communicated to the appellate authority before the appeal was heard, any decision nonetheless rendered by that authority was without jurisdiction. The revisional authority could validly invoke suo motu revisional power to examine the legality and propriety of the proceedings and set aside an order passed by a forum lacking jurisdiction. Procedural objections did not cure the core defect, because an order made without jurisdiction cannot be sustained. The appellate order was therefore rightly set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority validly exercised suo motu powers to set aside the appellate order on the ground that the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction after transfer of appellate jurisdiction for the district.

Analysis: The appellate jurisdiction over the district had been transferred by the competent authority under the relevant rules before the appeal was heard and decided. The record showed that the change of jurisdiction had been communicated to the appellate authority and had been brought to its notice at the hearing, yet the appeal was still decided. In those circumstances, the appellate order was without jurisdiction. The revisional authority was empowered under the statutory revisional provision to call for the record suo motu for satisfying itself about the legality or propriety of proceedings or orders, and it recorded a clear finding that the appellate authority had acted with undue haste despite lack of jurisdiction. The alleged procedural objections did not affect the core defect, since an order passed without jurisdiction cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The revisional authority's exercise of suo motu jurisdiction was valid, and the appellate order was rightly set aside as without jurisdiction.

---