Supreme Court: Deciding the reference made from a group of 11 appeals and 3 Special Leave Petitions to resolve the conflict between two 3-judge bench decisions i.e. Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana, (1993) 1 SCC 499 and Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, (1988) 3 SCC 131, on the question that whether the High Court, as revisional authority, under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 could interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/first appellate authority, the Court approved the view taken in Rukmini Case.
The present reference to a larger bench was made by the 2-judge bench as Parijat Sinha, the appellant’s counsel had relied upon the decision in Rukmini Case in support of the contention that in support of the contention that the revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate evidence. However, Pravin Kumar, the respondent’s counsel had urged that the decision in Ram Dass case says that the expression “legality and propriety” enables the revisional Court to reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court.
Explaining the observation in Ram Dass case that as the expression used conferring revisional jurisdiction is “legality and propriety”, the High Court has wider jurisdiction, the Court held that it obviously means that the power of revision vested in the High Court in the statute is wider than the power conferred on it under Section 115 CPC; it is not confined to the jurisdictional error alone. It was explained that the judgment does not exposit that the revisional power conferred upon the High Court is as wide as an appellate power to re-appraise or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Court/Authority below, rather, it emphasises that while examining the correctness of findings of fact, the revisional Court is not the second Court of first appeal and that the decision should be read as explained by this Court.
The five judge bench of R.M. Lodha, CJ and Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and S.A. Bobde was of the opinion that revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal and that where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Dilbahar Singh, Civil Appeal No.6177 of 2004, decided on 27.08.2014
To read the full judgment, refer SCCOnLine
