Rajeshwar Singh - (1.) THIS is a Civil revision against the order of Additional District Judge under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code directing the revisionist to implead opposite parties nos. 3 to 6 as parties to a suit filed by the revisionist.
(2.) THE facts are that the revisionist filed a suit against State Transport Authority praying that they be restrained from issuing temporary permit and secured a temporary injunction. THE opposite parties nos. 3 to 6 who had temporary permit for a certain periods and expected to get it renewed applied for being made party. THE learned Additional District Judge directed them to be made parties by the impugned order against which the present revision has been filed. There are two points in this case-one is whether the revision against this order can be entertained and the other is whether the order is such that revision should be admitted. The power under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code can be exercised if Subordinate Court 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.
(3.) IN the case of Mancik Chandra Nandy v Debdas Nandy, (1986) 1 SCC 512 Supreme Court pointed out that under section 115 Civil Procedure Code revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised by the High Court in a case in which no appeal lies to it from the decision of a Subordinate Court if it appears to it that the Subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is thus confined to question of jurisdiction. Again in the case of Sushila Devi v. Avinash Chandra Jain, (1987) 2 SCC 219, the Supreme Court said that it is necessary to emphasise that unlike section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the High Court's power of interference in revision touches jurisdiction, the power of the High Court to interfere in revision under sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act is much wider in scope. This again shows that revisional power under section 115 CPC touches jurisdiction.;