https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301576 Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is confined to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material irregularity; it cannot be used to correct mere errors of fact or law. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded those limits by interfering with the Additional District Judge's stay of proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, because the subordinate court had acted within jurisdiction. It also held that a prejudicial ex parte order on a clarification application under Sections 151/141 CPC could not be passed without notice to the affected party. The impugned High Court orders were quashed, leaving further proceedings open in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Apr 2022 10:52:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301576 Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is confined to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material irregularity; it cannot be used to correct mere errors of fact or law. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded those limits by interfering with the Additional District Judge's stay of proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, because the subordinate court had acted within jurisdiction. It also held that a prejudicial ex parte order on a clarification application under Sections 151/141 CPC could not be passed without notice to the affected party. The impugned High Court orders were quashed, leaving further proceedings open in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301576