Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Deep Ram against the judgment of the learned Additional District judge Ambala who had rejected his appeal against the order of the learned trial Judge, who had dismissed his applicant on for temporary injunction.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the property of Deep Ram ultimately came to the hands of Amir Chand. After his death his son Nanak Chand filed a suit for its possession by redemption. The suit as decreed. The appeals against that decree were also dismissed One of the defendants in the suit was Deep Ram son of Hari Kishan Nanak Chand took out execution of the decree. Deep Ram, the present petitioner, filed objections. They were also dismissed by the executing Court. The petitioner filed a suit in the Civil Court in which, inter alia he claimed that he had become the owner of the shop in dispute by adverse possession and could not be ejected from that shop in execution of the decree passed in the Civil Court. In short, his case in the suit as well as in the objections before the executing Court was that the present petitioner was not made a party to the earlier suit, and the decree has in fact not been passed against him. He made an application to the learned Trial Court for injunction restraining the defendant Nanak Chand from taking possession of the shop in dispute. This application was dismissed He filed an appeal against the order of the learned trial Court The same was also dismissed Dissatisfied with these orders, he has filed the present revision petition. At the threshold, Mr. H.L. Sarin, the learned counsel for the respondent, has raised a preliminary objection He has contended that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to decide the application for grant of temporary injunction one way or the other. The trial Court exercised its jurisdiction and rejected the application It cannot be said that the trial Court or the learned lower appellate Court exercised juridical either illegally or with material irregularity Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the present petition under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, is not competent and this Court cannot interfere with the order of the trial Court In support of this contention, he has relied on The managing Director (MIC) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar Hyderabad & another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase & Stores) H.A.L. Balanagar Hyderabad, : A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 76 and The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria and another : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2621. Undoubtedly, both these judgments help him. It has been clearly held that unless there is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, no revision petition is competent In the present cast, Mr. G.S. Chawla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned trial Court or the learned lower appellate Court. Mr. Chawla contended that by the recent amendment in the Civil Procedure Code in section (sic) the scope of this section has been widened I find that there is no merit in this contention. By the (sic) rather a further qualification has been prescribed It has been provided that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order by the subordinate Courts, except where the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause (sic) injury to the party against whom it was made So, now after the amendment, that impugned order can be set aside only if there is a jurisdictions error and further by the impugned order failure of justice is occasioned or irreparable injury to the parties is caused. The scope of section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, has not been widened, it has rather been narrowed down.
(3.) I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. The parties are directed through their learned counsel to appear before the learned trial Court on September 24, 1979. The records of the case which have been summoned from the learned trial Court, be sent back forthwith.;