https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172386 Revisional jurisdiction under section 35(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 is wider than section 115 CPC, but it remains confined to ensuring that the decision is according to law and does not cause miscarriage of justice. It does not permit the High Court to reappraise evidence or convert revision into a rehearing on facts merely because it disagrees with concurrent findings below. Interference is justified only for jurisdictional error, improper admission or exclusion of evidence, denial of a fair opportunity, misplacement of the burden of proof, or similar defects showing an unfair trial. The High Court erred in disturbing concurrent factual findings on an incorrect assumption about a material exhibit. en-us Tue, 05 Dec 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:36:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172386 Revisional jurisdiction under section 35(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 is wider than section 115 CPC, but it remains confined to ensuring that the decision is according to law and does not cause miscarriage of justice. It does not permit the High Court to reappraise evidence or convert revision into a rehearing on facts merely because it disagrees with concurrent findings below. Interference is justified only for jurisdictional error, improper admission or exclusion of evidence, denial of a fair opportunity, misplacement of the burden of proof, or similar defects showing an unfair trial. The High Court erred in disturbing concurrent factual findings on an incorrect assumption about a material exhibit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Dec 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172386