Hari Swarup, J. (for self and for T. S. Misra, J.) - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the IV Additional District Judge, Kheri.
(2.) A suit was instituted by the respondent under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession. The trial court after considering the evidence came to the finding that on the date of alleged dispossession by the defendant the plaintiff was not in possession. After this finding he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went up in revision and the revision was allowed. The revisional court took the view that the trial Court had committed error in holding that the plaintiff was not in possession and as such it had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to reverse the finding of fact and that on the finding of fact recorded by the trial court the decree was not even erroneous. He has further contended that there was no case, of failure to exercise jurisdiction by the trial court.
(3.) THE finding of the trial court was that the plaintiff was not in possession but the possession was of the vendee Smt. Pushpa Devi to whom the property had been sold and that the luggage had been kept by the plaintiff in the house only with the permission of the vendee. THE court in exercise of its powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not have reversed the finding on reappreciation of evidence. THE finding had to be accepted as final for determining if the judgment and decree of the trial court were liable to be interferred with in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The powers of the revisional court are very limited and are circumscribed by the provisions of Section 115 of the Code. Section 115 permits a revisional court to reverse the order of a subordinate court only if it appears - "(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity." Clause (a) obviously does not apply because the suit had been instituted in accordance with law and the court had jurisdiction to pass a decree therein. Clause (b) also does not apply because the trial court had finally decided the suit. Once a suit is instituted and the court passes a decree in the suit, it cannot be said to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. If the court has jurisdiction to decide a case then even an erroneous decision of the suit will not amount to non-decision thereof or non-exercise of jurisdiction by the court.;