2013 (1) TMI 939 - HC - Indian Laws

Court limits revisional jurisdiction to substantive rights, not procedural aspects under Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

The court clarified that the revisional jurisdiction under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is limited to orders affecting ... - Issues Involved:1. Scope and ambit of the power of revision u/s 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.2. Maintainability of a revision application u/s 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in respect of a procedural order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure.Comprehensive Summary:Issue 1: Scope and Ambit of the Power of Revision u/s 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999The court examined the legislative intent and historical context of the provision, emphasizing that the revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not as broad as appellate jurisdiction. The revisional power is intended to correct errors that result in a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. The court referred to several precedents, including the observations of Chief Justice Beaumont in Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj and the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar v/s. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhuri, to underline that the phrase 'according to law' refers to the overall decision and not merely errors of law or fact. The court concluded that the revisional powers should be exercised to subserve the ends of justice and not for correcting mere procedural errors.Issue 2: Maintainability of a Revision Application u/s 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999The court held that a revision application is not maintainable against procedural orders unless such orders affect the substantive rights and liabilities under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act or any other substantive law. The court emphasized that the order must affect the very existence of the suit or the foundation of the party's case and not merely procedural aspects. The judgment provided illustrative lists of revisable and non-revisable orders to clarify the application of this principle.Revisable Orders:1. An order refusing leave to amend the plaint or written statement, where the proposed amendment asserts rights or liabilities under substantive law.2. An order rejecting an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC.3. An order allowing or rejecting an application for a declaration that the suit has abated.4. An order refusing to extend the time for filing a written statement.5. An order for deleting an issue pertaining to rights or liabilities under substantive law.Non-Revisable Orders:1. An order granting leave to amend the plaint or written statement.2. An order granting extension of time to file a written statement.3. An order raising additional issues.4. An order for production of documents or discovery or inspection.5. An order directing a party to furnish better and further particulars.6. An order issuing or refusing to issue a commission for examination of witnesses.7. An order issuing or refusing to issue summons for additional witness or document.8. An order condoning delay in filing documents after the first date of hearing.9. An order of costs to one of the parties for its default.10. An order granting or refusing an adjournment.11. An order allowing an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC.ConclusionThe court clarified that the scope of revision u/s 34(4) is limited to orders affecting substantive rights and not merely procedural aspects. The revisional jurisdiction is intended to correct miscarriages of justice due to mistakes of law, ensuring that the overall decision is 'according to law.' The writ petitions were remanded to the learned Single Judge for further hearing in light of these principles.