1969 (4) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdictional powers in revision and appeal matters, stresses on finality and prevention of abuse.

The Supreme Court held that interference under Articles 226 and 227 could be justified despite the dismissal of a revision petition under Section 115 of ... Merger of orders of subordinate courts in orders of superior courts - Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC as part of appellate jurisdiction - Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 after dismissal of a revision petition - Abuse of process and finality of judicial decisionsMerger of orders of subordinate courts in orders of superior courts - Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC as part of appellate jurisdiction - Whether an order of a subordinate court merges in the order of the High Court when the High Court disposes of a petition under Section 115 CPC. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Section 115 CPC constitutes a mode of exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and is essentially part of its broader appellate power as a superior court. When the High Court, on revisional jurisdiction, issues a notice, hears both parties and makes an order, that order represents the exercise of the High Court's appellate power and, accordingly, the principle of merger applies to the extent recognised by precedent. Earlier authorities treating revision as entirely distinct from appeal were examined and distinguished; decisions of this Court and of other benches indicating that revisional orders replace or become the final orders of the superior court were relied upon. The Court therefore rejected the view that a revisional order does not effect merger and concluded that the order of the subordinate court, insofar as it is the subject of a revisional adjudication resulting in a High Court order after hearing, merges into the High Court's order. [Paras 3, 6]Section 115 revisional proceedings are a mode of appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and, upon disposal after hearing, the High Court's order operates as the final order into which the subordinate court's order merges.Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 after dismissal of a revision petition - Abuse of process and finality of judicial decisions - Whether the High Court should have entertained a petition under Articles 226 and 227 after a revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the same subordinate court order had been dismissed by a Single Judge. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that even assuming the revisional order had not resulted in complete merger, it was not proper for the High Court to entertain an extraordinary writ petition in respect of the same subordinate court order after the party had chosen and exhausted the remedy under Section 115 CPC. Permitting parallel recourse would encourage abuse of process and risk conflict between decisions of the same court. The High Court's discretion should be exercised so as to accord finality to its own decisions and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings; therefore, where one adequate mode of invoking the High Court's jurisdiction has been invoked and exhausted, it is ordinarily improper to grant relief by another route in respect of the same order. [Paras 8, 9]The writ petition ought not to have been entertained after the revision remedy under Section 115 CPC had been invoked and disposed of; exercise of writ jurisdiction in such circumstances was improper.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the division bench's judgment of the Bombay High Court interfering under Articles 226 and 227 was set aside, and the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction by entertaining the writ after dismissal of revision was held improper; appellant entitled to costs in this Court. Issues:Interference under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution with the order of the appellate court in proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, after a petition for revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, had been dismissed by a single Judge of that court.Analysis:The case involved a dispute between the appellant, the owner of a house in Poona, and the respondent, a teacher who was the tenant of a block of four rooms in the house. The appellant sought possession of the premises under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, on the grounds that the respondent had acquired suitable accommodation elsewhere. The trial court granted possession of two rooms, but both parties appealed to the District Judge. The Extra Assistant Judge affirmed the trial court's decree, stating that the premises were suitable for the whole family. The respondent then filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. Subsequently, the respondent challenged the same order of the appellate court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.The division bench of the High Court, relying on the decision in K.B. Sipahimalani v. Fidahussein Vallibhoy, held that interference under Articles 226 and 227 could be justified if a proper case was made out, despite the dismissal of the revision petition. The bench concluded that the respondent had not acquired an alternative suitable residence, contrary to the lower courts' findings. As a result, the orders of the courts below were set aside, citing a misinterpretation of Section 13(1)(1) of the Act.The Supreme Court delved into the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction, referencing the case law to determine the scope of the High Court's powers under Section 115 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction is part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. It noted that the principle of merger of orders of inferior courts into those of superior courts would not be affected by distinguishing between a revision petition and an appeal.The Court further discussed the concept of merger in judgments pronounced by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. It highlighted that once a judgment is pronounced after a full hearing, it replaces the judgment of the lower court, becoming the final judgment to be executed. The Court also emphasized the importance of respecting finality and preventing abuse of process by granting relief through multiple avenues for the same order of the subordinate court.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the division bench of the High Court and awarding costs to the appellant.