Revisional jurisdiction under CPC upheld where no second appeal lay, and perverse findings based on misread evidence were corrected.

Revision under Section 115 CPC was held maintainable against an appellate decree where the decree finally disposed of the suit and no second appeal lay because Section 102 CPC barred it. The Court rejected the view that revisional power is limited to interlocutory orders. It also held that revisional interference may extend to perverse findings where material evidence is ignored or misread. On the evidence, the plaintiff's title and entrustment were supported by documentary and oral material, while the appellate court's contrary findings were found unsupported. The revision succeeded, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the trial court decree with money relief and interest was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the appellate decree when a second appeal was barred by Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the appellate Court's findings on title, entrustment, and liability were perverse and liable to be interfered with in revision.

Issue (i): Whether a revision was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the appellate decree when a second appeal was barred by Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 115(1) was construed as requiring the Court to ask whether the impugned order, if made in favour of the revision petitioner, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. Since the appellate judgment had finally disposed of the suit and no second appeal lay because the suit value was below the statutory limit, the bar under Section 102 did not exclude revisional scrutiny. Reading the section as a whole, the Court rejected the contention that the revisional power was confined only to interlocutory orders.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate Court's findings on title, entrustment, and liability were perverse and liable to be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: The Court held that revisional interference is confined to cases of jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction, but that perversity in findings may also justify correction where material evidence is ignored or misread. On the evidence, the plaintiff's title was supported by the pattadar passbook and other surrounding material, and the entrustment of paddy for thrashing was supported by oral evidence. The appellate Court's rejection of these findings was held to be unsupported and perverse.

Conclusion: The appellate findings were perverse and liable to be set aside, and the plaintiff was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the trial court decree was restored with money relief and interest in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable where the impugned appellate order finally disposes of the suit and no appeal lies, and revisional interference may be warranted where the subordinate Court's findings are perverse and vitiated by non-consideration or misappreciation of material evidence.

---