LexKRISHNAJI DATTATRYAYA BAPAT versus KRISHNAJI DATTATRYAYA BAPAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
322
KRISHNAJI DAITATRYAYA BAPAT
v.
KRISHNAJI DAITATRYAYA BAPAT
April 16, 1969
A
[J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
B
Conmtution of India, Arts. 226 and 221-Writ Pttitio,.._,,urisdiction
of High Court, after exercising revisionary
juri.rdictirm--Codt of Civil
Proc•dur<, s. 115-Scope of.
Against the orrler of an appellate court, the ""J>OOdent filed a revi-
sion undef s. 115 of \he C-Odc of Civil Procedure. The Single Judge r:Ji
the Hiib C'">Urt diJmissed the revision.
"Thereupon the respondent moved
a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 ol the Constitution challengiug the
same order of the appellate court.
The High Court held that in spite of
the dismissal of the revision petition, it could interfere under Arts. 226 and
227 of the Constitution on a proper case bein~ made out; and after go-
ing into the merits of the case, it granted rehcf to ·the respondent.
In
appeal to this Court, the appellr.nt contended that the High C'..oun could
not interfere under arts. 226 and 227.
Allowing the appeal. this Court,
HELD : Even on the a~'umption that the order of the appellate court
had not merged in the order of the Single Judge who had disposed of the
revhion petition a writ petition ou&iJ.t not to have been entertained by the
High Court when the ~dent had already chosen the remedy under
s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If there are two mode< of invok-·
ing the jurisdictiOn of the High Court and one cJ{ those m<>des has been
chosen and exhausted it wculd not be a proper and sound exercise of
ddcrelion to rant relief in the other set of proceedings in respect of the
ume order o the ~ubordinate court. The refusal to grant relief in such
circumstances would be in consonance with the anxiety of the court to
prevent abuse c:lf process
:is
a1so to respect and accord finaJity to its
own decisions. [327 HJ
When the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is
done because it is a superior court and it can interfere for the purpose of
rectifying the error of the court bel<>W.
Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction
which is being exercised is a part dl the general appe11ate jurisdiction of
the High Court as a superior court.
It is only one of the modes of exer*
cising power conferred by the Statute; basically and fundamentally it is
the appellate jurisdiction of the Hi)lh C'oort which is being invoked and
exercised il'I a wider and larger scn9C.
The principle of merger of orders
of inferior coons in those superior courts would not be affected or would
not become inapplicable by making a distinction
between a petition for
revision and an appeal. [327 BJ
Madan Lal Rungta v. Secy. to the Government of OriJJa.
[1962!
l Supp. S.C.R. 906, Natr•ndra Nath D•y v. Sur<sh Chandra D<v. 59 I.A.
'83, 287; Raja of Ramnad v. Kamid Rowth•n & Ors. 53 I.A. 74. P. P. P.
vhidomhara Nadar v. C.P.A. Rama Nadar & Ors. A.LR. 1937 Mad. 385.
Secretary of State for India in Council v. British India Steam Navigation
Co. 13 C.L.J. 90, Attomey-Gent'Ta/ v. Sil/em.
(1864) IO H.L.C. 704,
Chap- v. Moidin, ( 1898) I.L.R. Mad. 68, 80, U. !. S. Chopra v. Star.
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHANIA'R v. llISHNAJI (Grover, 1.)
323
A
of Bombay, A.J.ll. 1955 S.C. 633
an\I
Chandi Prasad Chokhani v.
State of Bihar, [1962) 2 S.C.ll. 276, referred to.
K. B. Sipa/Umalllni v. Fidahussein Va/libhoy, 58
B.L.R. 344, dis,
approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JUllISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 870 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
June 14, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appli-
cation No. 3?l>of 1965.
S. S. Shukla, for the appellant.
C
M. C. Bhandare, K. Ra;endra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri,
D
E
F
G
H
for the responc;lent.
Tile Judgment w the Court was delivered by
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg-
ment of the division benClt of the Bombay High Court.
The
only question for deCision is whether the High Court could inter-
fere under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution with the order
of the appellate court in proceedings under the Bombay Rents,
Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 194 7, hereinafter
called the "Act", when a petition for revision under s. ll 5, Chil
Procedure Code, against t.he same order had been previously dis-
missed by a singie Judge of that court.
The appellant is the owner of a house in Poona.
The res·
pondent, who was Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.