Orissa High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Kathi Bewa And Ors. on 10 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(II)OLR9
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra
JUDGMENT P.K. Misra, J.
1. This civil revision at the instance of some of the defendants is directed against the order of the trial Court admitting certain documents as evidence.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the documents are inadmissible and cannot be utilised for any purpose and, as such, the trial Court has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction by admitting such documents.
3. Relevant provisions contained in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the "C.P.C.") are extracted hereunder:
"115. Revision.
(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such 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.
the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit :
Provided that the High Court shall not under this section. vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where-
(a)** ** **
(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made."
The proviso to Section 115 C.P.C. which was added by Act 104 of 1976 makes it clear that the revisional Court shall not vary or reverse any order unless it comes to the conclusion that the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
4. By merely, admitting certain documents it cannot be said that any right of the parties has been determined, or there has been failure of justice or any irreparable injury would be caused. In spite of the fact that the documents have been marked as exhibits, it would be open to the defendants to raise any contention relating to inadmissibility of such documents on any permissible ground before the trial Court and if the ultimate decision in the suit goes against the defendants, they can challenge such conclusion in appeal by taking recourse to Section 105 C.P.C. In such view of the matter. I do not entertain this Civil Revision. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed regarding the tenability of the contentions raised by the petitioners. There will be no order as to costs.