Special-case reference jurisdiction fails without stated property value, while supervisory revision remains maintainable

A revision against a decree on a special-case reference was treated as maintainable because the ordinary appeal route did not apply and supervisory jurisdiction was the proper remedy. The Court also held that jurisdiction could not be assumed on a reference for delivery of property unless the written agreement strictly complied with the prescribed procedure, including stating the estimated value of the property where that value governed pecuniary jurisdiction. As the agreement omitted that essential value, the procedural condition precedent was not met and the decree was set aside insofar as it related to the petitioner's land.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil revision was maintainable against the decree passed on a reference under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the Court below could assume jurisdiction when the written agreement for reference did not state the estimated value of the property as required by the procedural rules governing special cases.

Issue (i): Whether the civil revision was maintainable against the decree passed on a reference under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A decree passed on a special case accepted under the relevant procedural scheme was treated as not attracting the ordinary appeal route relied upon by the respondent. In that situation, the supervisory jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner was held to be the appropriate remedy.

Conclusion: The revision petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court below could assume jurisdiction when the written agreement for reference did not state the estimated value of the property as required by the procedural rules governing special cases.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required a written agreement to conform to the prescribed procedure before the Court could entertain the reference. For agreements concerning delivery of property, the estimated value of the property had to be stated, and that value determined the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. As the agreement in question did not contain the estimated value, the procedural condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The Court below lacked jurisdiction and the impugned decree was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and the decree was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioner's land, on the ground that the reference had been entertained without compliance with the mandatory jurisdictional requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: A Court cannot assume jurisdiction on a special-case reference unless the agreement strictly satisfies the prescribed procedural requirements, including disclosure of the estimated value where the subject matter is property, because such value governs pecuniary jurisdiction.

---