Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional error or material irregularity, not mere error on merits.

Revisional interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is confined to cases where the subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction. An order may be debatable or even erroneous on merits, but if the court had jurisdiction to pass it and no jurisdictional infirmity is shown, the High Court cannot substitute its own view in revision. The Supreme Court accordingly stated that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the first appellate court's interim order on revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in revision with the first appellate court's interim order when that court had jurisdiction to make the order and there was no case of illegal exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity.

Analysis: Revisional interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is available only where the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. An order may be right or wrong on merits, but if the court had jurisdiction to pass it and there is no jurisdictional infirmity, the High Court cannot substitute its own view in revision.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the first appellate court's order in revision.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked merely because the subordinate court's order is erroneous on merits; interference is confined to jurisdictional errors or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.

---