TULSI SAHU Vs. DHAN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. DC Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) This revision petition is filed challenging the order of the trial court whereunder the affidavit evidence of the defendant's witness has not been accepted by the court on the ground that his name does not appear in the list of witnesses submitted by the defendant.

(3.) In exercise of the powers under Sec 115 of the CPC, the High Court may call for the record of any cases which has been decided by the court subordinate to the High Court where no appeal lies from such orders. The High Court, if it finds that the order under revision has been passed by the subordinate court in exercise of the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or the court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or when the court has exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, can pass appropriate order. The power of the High Court to pass appropriate order in the aforesaid conditions has been restricted by proviso added to Sec 115 of the CPC by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 which came into force from 1 st July, 2002 whereunder the High Court shall not exercise powers of varying or reversing any order which is a subject matter of revision, except where the order, if it is made in favour of the party applying for the revisional jurisdiction, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. In other words, the order passed by this Court should be in fact, of disposal of the proceedings or suit. When the order passed by this court could not dispose of the suit or proceedings, but it has merely decided the question raised at interlocutory stage, the High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and decide the case in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.