K.P.Singh - (1.) THIS is a defendants' writ petition against the order of Sri D. P. Varun, I. A. S., Member Board of Revenue (Camp Bareilly) dt. 29-12-1978 whereby the revision petitions preferred by the defendant-petitioners have been dismissed.
(2.) THE defendant-petitioners had taken a plea in the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties to the effect that the suits were barred by the provisions of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. THE defendants' plea was rejected by the trial court through its order dated 14-7-1974 contained in Annexure ' 1 ' attached with the writ petition. THE revision petitions preferred by the defendants were recommended to be allowed by the Additional Commissioner through his judgment dated 6-1-1977 (see Annexure ' 2 ') attached with the writ petition THE learned Board of Revenue has disagreed with the recommendation and has dismissed the references through his order dated 29-12-1978. Against the order of the learned Member dated 29-12-1978 the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the learned Member has patently erred in holding that the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners were not maintainable. It has been emphasised before me that the learned Member has misunderstood and misconstrued the terms ' case decided ' in the facts and circumstances of the present case ' ; therefore the impugned judgment should be quashed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and I have gone through the imgugned judgment of the learned Member. In my opinion the learned Member has patently erred in holding that the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners were not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Member has relied upon the ruling Raja Deo Singh v. Kr. Shambhoo Krishna Narain, 1960 RD 139 and Chandi Prasad v. Narain, 1969 RD 300. In my opinion the decision of the learned Member is patently erroneous in view of the decision of the highest court of the country.
(3.) IN Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made the following observations :- " The expression ' case ' is a word of comprehensive import. It includes civil proceedings other than suits and is not restricted by anything contained in the section to the entirety of the proceedings in a civil court. To interpret the expression ' case ' as an entire proceeding only and not a part of a proceeding would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of the powers of superintendence to which the jurisdiction to issue writs, and the supervisory jurisdiction are not subject, and may result in certain cases in denying relief to an aggrieved litigant where it is most needed and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice. The expression ' case ' includes a suit, but in asserting the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court, there would be no warrant for equating it with a suit alone AIR 1921 All. (FB) over-ruled. " The High Court ruling relied upon by the learned member is mainly based upon the ruling reported in Budhoo Lal v. Mewa, AIR 1921 All. I which has not been approved by their Lordship of the supreme Court in the ruling mentioned above.;