Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat

Facts

The appellant landlord owned a house in Poona, four first-floor rooms of which were let to the respondent, a teacher. After the respondent was transferred to Wai in 1958 with residential accommodation while his son stayed on in Poona for studies, the appellant sued for possession under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, alleging the tenant had acquired suitable accommodation elsewhere. The trial court decreed possession of two rooms and the appellate court affirmed that decree. The respondent's revision petition under Section 115 CPC to the High Court was dismissed, after which he filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 challenging the same order, which a Division Bench of the High Court entertained and allowed.

Issues

• Whether, after a revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been dismissed by the High Court, the same order can be challenged before the High Court afresh by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
• Whether the order of the subordinate court merges in the order of the High Court passed in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
• Whether revisional jurisdiction is, in essence, part of the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court for the purpose of the doctrine of merger.

Arguments

The appellant contended that once the Section 115 revision was dismissed, the subordinate court's order merged in the High Court's order, so a fresh writ petition under Articles 226/227 on the same grounds was not maintainable. The respondent contended that revision is distinct from appeal and that dismissal of a revision did not bar a subsequent writ petition where proper grounds existed.

Held

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Division Bench's judgment. It held that revisional jurisdiction is exercised as part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, so that any application asking an appellate court to set aside or revise a decision of a subordinate court is, in the broader sense, an appeal. Consequently, when the High Court dismissed the revision petition, the order of the subordinate court merged in the order of the High Court, and the same matter could not be reopened by a writ petition under Articles 226/227. The Court further held that even apart from merger, where two modes of invoking the High Court's jurisdiction exist and one has been chosen and exhausted, it would not be a proper and sound exercise of discretion to grant relief through the other proceedings.

Ratio decidendi

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is a part of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction; once it is invoked and the revision is decided, the order of the subordinate court merges in the High Court's order, and the same order cannot afterwards be assailed by a writ petition under Articles 226/227 on the same grounds.

Significance

A leading authority on the doctrine of merger and on the relationship between revision under Section 115 CPC and the High Court's writ jurisdiction; it establishes that revisional jurisdiction is part of appellate jurisdiction and that a litigant cannot pursue successive remedies over the same order. It has been widely followed and discussed in later decisions on merger.

Related