TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the District Judge's brief order dismissing the review application disclosed a jurisdictional error warranting interference in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the review court could reconsider the entertainability of the pauper appeal after notice had already been issued under Order 44 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issue (i): Whether the District Judge's brief order dismissing the review application disclosed a jurisdictional error warranting interference in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: A mere error of law is not enough for revision, but where the order in substance shows a refusal to exercise a jurisdiction vested in the court, the error becomes jurisdictional. The record showed that once notice had been issued under Order 44 Rule 1(2), the stage for re-examining whether the decree appealed from was contrary to law or otherwise erroneous or unjust had passed. The District Judge's order therefore revealed a failure to exercise review jurisdiction that had arisen on the face of the record.
Conclusion: The revisional court held that interference under Section 115 was justified.
Issue (ii): Whether the review court could reconsider the entertainability of the pauper appeal after notice had already been issued under Order 44 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Once notice had issued, the question whether the decree was contrary to law or otherwise erroneous or unjust could not be reopened at a later stage. The appropriate course was to treat the matter as one already advanced beyond that stage and to proceed with the appeal on pauper footing. The earlier refusal to do so was treated as legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: The order refusing to proceed with the pauper appeal was set aside and the appeal was directed to be taken on file and disposed of accordingly.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded because the lower court's order was treated as a jurisdictional failure rather than a mere error of law, and the matter was directed to proceed as a pauper appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A court's refusal to exercise a jurisdiction that has already arisen, especially after notice under the relevant procedural rule, amounts to a jurisdictional error amenable to revision, and a prior or subsequent binding decision showing the correct legal position may constitute either an error apparent on the face of the record or a new and important matter for review.
TaxTMI 
