KESHARDEO CHAMRIA versus RADHA KISSEN CHAMHIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 30-10-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
1S6 
SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS 
[1953] 
Magistrate for taking action according to law under 
section 514 will, therefore, stand set aside. 
Ramesh war 
Bha»tia 
V'-7 e generally do not interfere in the matter of sen-
v. 
tenc~, but in this case we find that the Magistrate has 
The State 01 held that the appellant's plea that he was ignorant of 
Assam. 
the provisions of the Assam Food Grains Control 
Ghan;;:;,hhara Order, 1947, was a genuine one. 
Having regard to 
Aiyar J. 
this circumstance and the fact that from a fine of 
Rs. 50 to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine 
of Rs. 1,000 is a big jump, we think it is appropriate 
that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the 
High Court should be set aside and we order a.ccord-
ing ly. The fine of Rs. 1,000 will stand. 
1952 
Oct. so., 
Sentence rediwed. 
Agent for the appellant: Rajinder Narain. 
Agent for the respondent: Naunit Lal. 
KESHARDEO CHAMRIA 
v. 
RADHA KISSEN CHAMHIA AND OTHERS 
RADHA KISSEN CHAMHIA AND OTHERS 
v. 
KESHARDEO CHAMRIA 
[MEHB CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS, VIVIAN BOSE 
and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Civil Proccditre Code (Act Vof 1908), ss. 47;115, 151-Execn· 
lion proceedings-Dismissal of adjoibrnment 1Jelition-Dis1nissa.l of 
execu,tion case also by same order without askinft pleader what he ha.s 
to sny-Restoration of case iinder inherent voivers-Appeal and revi-
sion petition to IIigh Court froni orfler of restorcition-Maintainabi-
lity of appeal-Interference by High Oonrt in revision-Legality-
Bevisional powers of High Gou.rt-Appeal frvrn orders 1na.de u,nder 
{nherent poivers. 
A Subordinate Judge dismissed an application by a decree· 
holder for adjournment of an execution case and by the same order 
dismissed the execution case itself '\vithout informing the decree--
holder's pleader that the application for adjournment had been dis-
missed and asking him whether he baa to make any suhmission in 
.. 
'• 
> ; 
S.C.R. 
SU~REME COURT REPORTS 
137 
the matter of the execution case, and on an application for restor-
1952 
ation of the execution case setting aside the order of dismissal, 
the Subordinate Judge, finding that he had committed ·an error 
Keshardea 
which had resulted in denial of justice restored the execution case 
Chainria 
in the exercise of the inherent powers of the court i.mder s. 151, 
v. 
Civil Procedure Code. 
The judgment-debtor preferred an appeal Radha Kissen 
and an application for revision to the High Court against this 
Chamria 
order. 
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable 
and Others. 
but set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge in the exercise of 
its revisional powers and remanded the case to the Subordinate 
Judge for fresh disposal after considering whether it would have 
been possible for the decree-holder to take any further steps in 
connection with the execution application after the dismissal of the 
application for adjournment: 
Held, (i) that the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing 
the execution case without givi~g an opport1mity to the decree 
holder's pleader to state what he had to say on the case itself was 
bad and was rightly set aside by the court on its own initiative 
in exercise of its inherent powers. 
(ii) The High Court had no jurisdiction in the exercise of its 
appellate powers to reverse the order of restoration as that order. 
by itself did not amount to a final determination of any question 
relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree within 
the meaning of s. 47, Criminal Procedure Code, and an order 
made under s. 151, Criminal Procedure Code, simpliciter is not an 
appealable order. 
Akshia Pillai v. Govindaraji;lu Chetty (A.LR. 1924 11ad. 778), 
Govinda Padayachi v. Velu J.furugiah Chettiar (A.LR. 1933 Mad. 
399) and Noor Molwmmad v. Sulaiman Khan (A.I.R. 1943 Oudh 
35) distinguished. 
(iii) As the order of the Subordinate Judge was one that he had 
jurisdiction to make, and as he had, in making that order, neithei· 
acted in excess of bis jurisdiction or with material irregularity nor 
committed any breach of procedure, the High Court acted in ex-
cess of its revisional jurisdiction under s. 115, Civil Procedure 
Code, and the order of remand and all proceedings taken subse-
quent to that order were illegal. 
Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, applies to matters o1 
jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it or 
the illegttl assumption of it, and if a subordinate court had juris-
diction to make the order it has mad

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