HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. versus DILBAHAR SINGH

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1379 · Decided: 27-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014) 14 S.C.R. 1379 
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
DILBAHAR SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 6177 of 2004) 
AUGUST 27, 2014 
[R. M. LODHA, CJI, DIPAK MISRA, MADAN B. LOKUR, 
KURIAN JOSEPH AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Jurisdiction - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court -
As provided under Rent Control Acts of Haryana, Kera/a and C 
Tamil Nadu - Ambit and scope of - Held: The scope of 
revisional jurisdiction provided under provisions of the Acts 
confines the power of the High Court to interfere with the 
finding of fact recorded by first appellate court/authority, only 
to the extent offinding out that the finding offact recorded by D 
court below did not suffer from any error- It cannot interfere 
with finding of fact in order to take a different view exercising 
its power as a court of appeal - Haryana Urban (Control of 
Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 - s. 15(6) - Kera/a Buildings 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - s. 20 - Tamil Nadu E 
Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960-s. 25 - Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 115. 
Words & Phrases: 
Term 'legality or propriety' - Extent, scope, ambit and F · 
meaning of, in the context of s. 15(6) of Haryana Urban 
(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. 
Term 'regularity correctness, legality and propriety' -
Extent, scope, ambit and meaning of, in the context of s. 25 
of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960.. 
G 
Term 'legality, regularity or propriety - Extent, scope, 
ambit and meaning of, in the context of s. 20 of Kera/a 
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 
1379 
H 
• 
1380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1 [2014) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Answering the referred question, the Court 
HELD: 1. Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a 
part of appellate jurisdiction, but it is not vice-versa. 
Both, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are 
creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has 
8 an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is 
continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the case 
may be. The power of the appellate court is co-extensive 
with that of the trial court. ·Ordinarily, appellate 
c . jurisdiction involves re-hearing on facts and law but such 
jurisdiction may be limited by the statute itself that 
provides for appellate jurisdiction. On the other hand, 
revision is· not continuation of suit or of original 
proceeding. When the aid ofrevisional court is invoked 
on the revisional side, _it can interfere within the 
D permissible parameters provided in the statute. As 
regards the extent of appellate or revisionaljurisdiction, 
·much would, however, depend on the language 
employed by the statute conferring appellate jurisdiction 
and revisional jurisdiction. [Para 25][140.3-E~H; 
E 1404-A-B] 
/ 
2. Where both expressions "appeal" and "revision" 
are employed in a statute, obviously, the expression 
"revision" is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower 
-F jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression 
"appeal". The use of two expressions "appeal" and 
"revision" when used in one statute conferring appellate 
power and revisional power, is not without purpose and 
significance.· [~ara 32][1405-D·E] 
G 
3. The observation in Ram Dass case that as th(il 
expression used conferring revisional jurisdiction is 
"legality and propriety'', the High Court has wider 
jurisdiction obviously means that the power of revision 
vested in the High Court in the statute is wider than the 
H power conferred on it under Section 115 CPC; it is not 
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 
1381 
DILBAHAR SINGH 
confined to the jurisdictional error alone. However, in A 
dealing with the findings of fact, the examination of. 
findings of fact by the High Court is limited to satisfy itself 
thatthe decision is"according to law". *Ram Dass case 
does not lay· down as a proposition of law that the· 
revisional power of the High Court under the Rent B 
Control Act is as wide as that of the Appellate Court'. 
[Para 33][1406-D-E, G] 
4. The word "propriety" does not confer power 
upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come 
to a different conclusion but its consideration of C 
evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and 
propriety of the order impugned before it. The view of 
this Court in **Rukmini case is approved. [Para 39] 
[1409-A-B] 
5. None of the three Rent Control Acts of H.aryana, D 
Kerala and Tamil Nadu entitles the High Court to interfere 
with the findings of fact recorded by the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.