T.A. Habeeb Rehman v. P.S. Ismail Puthupparambil House

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **WEDNESDAY,THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **CRP.No. 26 of 2011** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 59/2008 of SUB COURT, PALA DATED 18-09-2010** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 197/2002 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **T.A.HABEEB REHMAN, S/O.AHAMAD RAWTHER, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKKUNNAM KARA, MUNDAKKAYAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **P.S.ISMAIL PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOTTICKAL KARA, MUNDAKKAYAM VILLAGE - 686 513.** **BY ADVS. SMT.JULIA PRIYA RESHMY SRI.K.A.HASSAN** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** _CRP 26/2011_ 2 ## **O R D E R** Whether the High Court exercising the powers under Section 115 of the C.P.C. has jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence in a case, which has been initially decreed by the Munsiff's Court and the judgment reversed and the suit dismissed by the Sub Court, is the question for consideration before this Court in this C.R.P. 2. The power exercisable by the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C. relates to jurisdictional power. Before getting into the arguments advanced by both sides, I find it essential to have a look into the provision under Section 115, C.P.C., which is re-produced below: _"_ _**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,_ _CRP 26/2011_ 3 _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 the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings._ _(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto._ _(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court._ _Explanation.- In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding."_ 3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.197/2002 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally, a suit for realisation of rent and the suit was decreed. The question of dispute was whether the rate of rent is Rs.400/- per month as contended by the defendant or Rs.1200/- p.m. as stated by the plaintiff. The learned Munsiff agreed with the plaintiff that though the original lease was for Rs.400/- p.m., it was enhanced to _CRP 26/2011_ 4 Rs.1200/- p.m. with effect from October, 2000 and that the rent has fell in arrears with effect from the first of January, 2001 as claimed by the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. The defendant produced Ext.B1 receipt, which contains the endorsement that the rent has been paid for the month of December, 2000 and the total amount is shown is Rs.1200/-. But subsequently there is an interpolation, adding the months of October and November at the wrong place in the printed receipt and towards the end of the receipt there is an endorsement, such as 400 x 3 = 1200, suggesting that the rent for three months from October to December 2000 has been received by the landlord. The plaintiff challenged this allegedly subsequent interpolation and sent Ext.B1 receipt for examination by an expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory and vide Ext.C1 report it was opined that the entries marked as Q1 and Q2 pertains to the endorsements regarding the months of October and November and the calculation of the rent as 400 x 3 = 1200 were made at a later point of time and not in the same ink as the original entries in the receipt. The _CRP 26/2011_ 5 learned Munsiff accepted this case of interpolation alleged by the plaintiff and decreed the suit for arrears of rent. However, in the appeal filed by the defendant as A.S.No.59/2008 the learned Sub Judge, Pala disagreed with the finding of the Munsiff, and also looking into the counter-foil produced by the plaintiff observed that the documents produced by the plaintiff as Ext.A1 series and Ext.A5 series are fabricated and that there was no material before the Court to show that the rent was enhanced from Rs.400/- to Rs.1200/- as claimed by the plaintiff and that the learned Munsiff has gone wrong in concluding that the rent was not enhanced to Rs.1200/-. The appeal was thus allowed and the plaintiff was allowed to recover the arrears of rent only at the rate of Rs.1200/- p.m. It is aggrieved by this appellate judgment in A.S.No.59/2008 that the plaintiff has come up on revision before this Court. 4. A reading of Section 115 of the C.P.C. makes it adequately clear that the jurisdiction of the High Court is a limited one and this Court cannot interfere in a finding, which does not relate to the jurisdiction. However, this _CRP 26/2011_ 6 Court can interfere only if there is jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below. In the case in hand, this Court has called upon to find out whether the facts and evidences before the Court below has been properly appreciated by the learned Munsiff in the trial or whether the version given by the learned Sub Judge in appeal is the correct one. Appreciation of evidence let in by witnesses and documents produced is not something, which has to be considered by this Court, sitting in revision, unless the finding is so perverse or not sustainable at all or is manifestly unjust. 5. In the decision reported in _**Lachhman Dass v. Santokh Singh, (1995) 4 SCC 201**_ and _**P.Udayani Devi v. V.V.Rajeshwara Prasad Rao & another, (1995) 3 SCC 252,**_ the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the finding of fact cannot be interfered with by a revisional Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ( _**2014) 9 SCC 78, Hindustan**_ _**Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh,**_ held that the revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion over the _CRP 26/2011_ 7 conclusion of the appellate authority. The only scope of examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction is confined to find out that the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below is in accordance with the law and do not suffer from any error of law. Reappreciation of evidence to come to a different conclusion is not within the scope of the revisional Court as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana & others, (1993) 1 SCC 499**_ . Going into the facts of the case in hand, I find absolutely no jurisdictional error or any legal infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence by the appellate court, demanding interference of this Court, sitting in its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the C.R.P. is not maintainable and the same is dismissed without costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **ASHOK MENON** _dkr_ ## **JUDGE** _CRP 26/2011_ 8 The word “not” occurring in the third last sentence of the third paragraph of the final order dated 28.11.2018 in C.R.P.No.26/2011 will stand deleted; and the last word “ **Rs.1,200/- p.m.** ” occurring towards the end of the second last sentence of the third paragraph of the order will stand replaced and read as “ **Rs.400/- p.m.** ”, as per order dated 10.01.2019 in C.R.P.No.26/2011. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)