TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds District Collector's decision in revision petition, no jurisdictional error found</h1> <h3>TV. Subba Rao Versus T. Koteswara Rao</h3> The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the District Collector's decision to restore the dismissed suit. It found no jurisdictional error or ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) to the decisions of the Collector and District Collector.2. Definition and scope of the term 'Court' under the Civil Procedure Code.3. Subordination of the Collector and District Collector to the High Court.4. Maintainability of the suit based on hereditary rights.5. Merits of the District Collector's decision to restore the dismissed suit.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) to the decisions of the Collector and District Collector:The revision petition was preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The preliminary objection raised was that Section 115 C.P.C. cannot be invoked as the Collector (R.D.O.) and the District Collector are not Civil Courts and are not subordinate to the High Court. The court noted that Section 115 applies if the following conditions are fulfilled: (1) There should be a decision in a case by a Court; (2) That Court should be subordinate to the High Court; (3) No appeal could have been made to the High Court in the case; and (4) One or other of the requirements in Clauses (a), (b), and (c) should be present.2. Definition and scope of the term 'Court' under the Civil Procedure Code:The term 'Court' is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code or the General Clauses Act but is inclusively defined in the Indian Evidence Act. The court referred to various judgments to conclude that a body or tribunal is a Court if it has the legal power to record evidence and make a binding decision on a matter in contest. The court cited several precedents, including the Privy Council's decision in Nilmoni Singh Deo v. Taranath Mukerjee and the Madras High Court's decision in Rajdh of Venkalagiri v. Mahaboob Saheb, to support the view that revenue courts are civil courts and subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.3. Subordination of the Collector and District Collector to the High Court:The court held that the decisions of the Collector, Markapur, and the District Collector, Kurnool, are decisions given by Courts within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C. It further stated that every Court or tribunal exercising jurisdiction within the territory over which a High Court exercises jurisdiction is subordinate to that High Court. The court emphasized that under Article 227 of the Constitution, every court and tribunal within the territorial limits of a High Court is subordinate to it. Therefore, the judgments of the Collector and District Collector are subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.4. Maintainability of the suit based on hereditary rights:The petitioner contended that the suit is not maintainable based on the Supreme Court's decision in Dasaratharama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that any recognition of a claim based on a hereditary right involves discrimination contrary to the Constitution. The court noted that this issue could not be considered at this stage and should be raised at the trial before the Collector, Markapur.5. Merits of the District Collector's decision to restore the dismissed suit:On the merits, the court found that the District Collector's decision to restore the dismissed suit was not vitiated by any defects mentioned in Clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 115, C.P.C. The District Collector had concluded that there was sufficient cause for the plaintiff's absence on the date of hearing, and the High Court did not find this conclusion to be illegal or materially irregular. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed on merits.Conclusion:The revision petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the District Collector's decision to restore the dismissed suit, finding no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the decision. The preliminary objection regarding the applicability of Section 115 C.P.C. was also overruled, affirming that the decisions of the Collector and District Collector are subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
