B.M. Mitra, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being directed against order No. 2 dated 15th May, 1995, passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore in Civil Revision No. 203 of 1995, arising out of a petition under S. 115-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held by this Court on a previous occasion giving the detailed vision that an order passed in a pending revisional application is not open to further revision under Section-115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the same is not permissible. Here in the present case, a proceeding was initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it has been contended by Mr. Das Gupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that even if the second revision does not lie on petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against such orders in view of the present position of law and trend of decisions. As on this stage, there is no manner of doubt of whatsoever nature that an order passed even in a revisional forum can be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the same is maintainable but petitioner would be required to satisfy the test of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to mention that Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers upon the High Court only restricted jurisdiction and it is required only to supervise on subordinate Court or Tribunals functioning within their limit and control. If any irregularity or error found in the order as a result of which it is travelled beyond the limit of the jurisdiction, it is required to be kept within the bounce of the limit of the same. Any error in law even assuming to be there cannot be corrected in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A reference may be made in this context to the decision in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mustaquim Ahmed, AIR 1984 SC 38, with regard to scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in a number of decisions including that of the one referred to above has tried to lay down particular scope and dimension of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has power of superintendence on subordinate Courts and Tribunals only with the right to keep a subordinate Court or Tribunal functioning under the superintendence of High Court within the precincts of its limit so that it cannot travel beyond the same and if it goes beyond the limits of the jurisdiction then the same is required ta be limited within the same. The High Court can neither correct any error of law nor it can even correct any error apparent on the face of record in exercise of its right of superintendent. In exceptional case, High Court may try to interfere with regard to the prosecution or procedure of any subordinate Court which makes any error resulting in not only failure of justice but resorting in perversity of procedure then only High Court can sit with so that justice is properly administered by the concerned Courts in seisin of the controversy. The Appeal Court in the instant case in exercise of its revisional powers while disposing of a petition of stay of operation of Oder No. 34 dated 10-5-1995 passed by the Trial Court in T. S. No. 90 of 1994, has granted stay with regard to communication of the copy of an order sent to the officer-in-charge, Bhowanipur Police Station. Mr. Das Gupta made this Court peruse the original order No. 34 dated 10-5-1995 passed by the 4th Court of Assistant District Judge at Alipore in Title Suit No. 90 of 1994 when the Court directed the implementation of the order through police and also further directed that the plaintiff might let out the 2nd and 3rd floor of A Schedule property to third parties of Hindu ceremonies. Mr. Dasgupta contended that in the backdrop of the present frame of the connected suit, the Trial Court ought not to have granted a party in possession the right to let out a portion under his possession when the suit property is yet to be partitioned by letting it out to third party for ceremonial purpose of religious festivities as stated earlier. Here in this case, the practice of letting out will be only for a temporary period and if the same is let out that may ensure an income for the suit property but the same is not permanently encumbered. Any party to the proceeding in a partition suit earns any amount out of usufructs of a party able estate, the party appropriating the same will be required to account for it and the same shall be settled on proper scrutiny of accounts. The Appeal Court is scheduled to hear the connected revisional case under Section 115-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and pending adjudication in the same the Court has exercised its discretion in an interlocutory stage. This Court has held that in a pending revisional application arising out of a proceeding under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure an interlocutory order is passed, the same is not open to further revision. If a revisional order under Section 115-A is allowed to be scrutinised in the High Court, the same should not be made. The phrase "case arising out of an original suit" occurring in Section 115 does not cover orders passed in the revision under Section 115-A. Only cases arising in original suit or proceeding are open to revision but not an order arising in a revisional application. A reference may be made in this connection to the case of Ranjit Kumar Banerjee v. Shri Panchanan Aditya, in C. O. No. 539 of 1995. A further reference may be made to the case of Mahadeb Sablaran Selke v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 1995 (3) SCC 33. In the said reported decision it has been held that when a Court has exercised the appellate power by invocation of Section 115(2), the High Court was devoid of jurisdiction to exercise revisional power. When statutory provision was imposed by Code of CmI Procedure which is a more expeditious and ; efficacious remedy, the exercise of jurisdiction : of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Analogous view was expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Vishes Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, AIR 1980 SC 892.
(2.) It is not a case where from the-, reading of the impugned order it appears that the learned Court below while exercising its discretion in passing an order on an application for stay has exceeded its jurisdiction or has resorted to some such perverse procedure resulting in material failure of justice for which the superintendence of High Court is called for under provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this Court does not propose to invoke its jurisdiction of superintendence in the present case and the petition accordingly fails on contest. However, the learned District Judge, Alipore is hereby directed to dispose of the Civil Revision Case No. 203 of 1995, as expeditiously as possible for ends of justice so that the controversy may be set at rest.
(3.) The application accordingly stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. Application dismissed.;