Revisional jurisdiction

Dispute was with regard to exercise of revisional jurisdiction by DG-CV who substituted his own determination for that of DCV or that of the Collector

Held: For purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of determination made either by Collector or Director Customs Valuation, the DG-CV under Section 25D of Customs Act, 1969 can exercise revisional powers

On a revision petition, DG-CV can revise determination made by Collector or DCV and such power has not been hedged or qualified by any condition or limitation

Provision of Section 25D of Customs Act, 1969 does not contain any controlling expression for restricting or circumscribing revisional power of DG-CV

Supreme Court declined to subscribe to the view taken by High Court as where revisional jurisdiction was conferred on a body without circumscribing the scope of jurisdiction and it could not be held that revisional jurisdiction inherently prohibited revisional forum from substituting its view that of the one under revision

Power of DG-CV under Section 25-D of Customs Act, 1969 encompassed the power not just to set-aside customs valuation by Collector or DCV but also to correct such valuation on the basis of the material that was presented before Collector or DCV, as the case may be

While exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25D of Customs Act, 1969 the DG-CV was competent to set-aside determination made under Section 25A (1) of Customs Act, 1969 and thereafter could exercise discretion either to remand the matter to the Collector or DCV as the case was or to modify or substitute (which could include increase or decrease) the determination under revision

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was allowed.

Dispute was with regard to exercise of revisional jurisdiction by DG-CV who substituted his own determination for that of DCV or that of the Collector

Held: For purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of determination made either by Collector or Director Customs Valuation, the DG-CV under Section 25D of Customs Act, 1969 can exercise revisional powers

On a revision petition, DG-CV can revise determination made by Collector or DCV and such power has not been hedged or qualified by any condition or limitation

Provision of Section 25D of Customs Act, 1969 does not contain any controlling expression for restricting or circumscribing revisional power of DG-CV

Supreme Court declined to subscribe to the view taken by High Court as where revisional jurisdiction was conferred on a body without circumscribing the scope of jurisdiction and it could not be held that revisional jurisdiction inherently prohibited revisional forum from substituting its view that of the one under revision

Power of DG-CV under Section 25-D of Customs Act, 1969 encompassed the power not just to set-aside customs valuation by Collector or DCV but also to correct such valuation on the basis of the material that was presented before Collector or DCV, as the case may be

While exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25D of Customs Act, 1969 the DG-CV was competent to set-aside determination made under Section 25A (1) of Customs Act, 1969 and thereafter could exercise discretion either to remand the matter to the Collector or DCV as the case was or to modify or substitute (which could include increase or decrease) the determination under revision

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was allowed.

Applicant /defendant was aggrieved of grant of interim injunction by Trial Court in favour of respondent / plaintiff, which was assailed before High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Validity

Order in question basically stated that as the Survey Superintendent contradicted himself and admitted that there might exist an overlap of location of properties in question, prima facie case for injunctive relief was made out

Such order could not be considered as special circumstances where Trial Court had either assumed a jurisdiction not vested init or had failed to exercise or declined to assume a jurisdiction vested in it by law or had taken a procedural step or had omitted to take a procedural step which was contrary to a mandatory provision of law or had taken procedural step pursuant to law which was directory in nature and applicant / defendant was prejudiced

High Court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction as the application was not maintainable for there existed no special circumstances

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a private complaint under S.200, Cr.P.C., alleging that he was apprehended by officials of the FIA

Respondent claimed ownership of approximately 200 Bitcoins and alleged that during the raid FIA officials misappropriated his digital currency, seized property and documents without recovery memo, accessed his email and blockchain accounts and transferred crypto currency from his hard wallet

Allegations of custodial torture and misuse of his online credentials were also levelled

Trial Court summoned the petitioners to face the trial

Validity

In the present case, after a full inquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C., the Inquiry Judge recorded the statements of two supporting witnesses, examined complainant and documentary as well as digital evidence, including blockchain records, and concluded that the allegations against the accused persons, including the present petitioner, were prima facie well-founded

From the material placed before it, the Trial Court appeared to have followed the legal steps required by Ss.200 & 202, Cr.P.C., before issuing summons

Order showed that an inquiry was first held, evidence was recorded, and only thereafter process was issued

Said facts demonstrated compliance with the statutory safeguards meant to prevent arbitrary or mechanical summoning of an accused

Revisional jurisdiction under Ss.435 & 439, Cr.P.C., was supervisory rather than appellate; it was exercised only to correct jurisdictional errors, illegalities or material irregularities and not to reassess the sufficiency of evidence already examined by the Trial Court at the preliminary stage

Objections raised by the petitioner, such as delay in filing the private complaint, alleged contradictions between earlier statements and the complaint, or accusations of mala fide intent, were essentially factual matters

Such issues must be evaluated during the trial on the basis of evidence and cross-examination

Such considerations, by themselves, did not undermine the limited finding of prima facie sufficiency under S.202, Cr.P.C. and therefore did not provide grounds for interference at the revisional stage

For these reasons, the impugned order passed by Trial Court admitting the private complaint and summoning the petitioner, disclosed no jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or perversity

Criminal revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto.

Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto.

While revisional powers may be circumscribed and cordoned off by conditions of excess of jurisdiction, failure to exercise jurisdiction and illegal exercise of jurisdiction, it is very vast as it is in the nature of certiorari and rather travels beyond the same.

In the matter of giving preference to the judgments of lower courts while analyzing the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, preference and regard is always given to the findings of the appellate court, unless they suffer from any legal infirmity or material irregularity.

In the event of conflict of judgments, findings of Appellate Court are to be preferred and respected, unless it is shown from the record that such findings are not supported by evidence.

Revisional jurisdiction under S.115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can only be invoked in the eventualities mentioned in the said provision of law

It cannot be resorted to in an omnibus fashion

Revision petition filed by the Judgment-debtor/Cantonment-Board, being frivolous and vexatious, was dismissed with special costs of Rs.5,00,000/-, in circumstances.

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondents / plaintiffs and appeal filed by petitioners / defendants was dismissed by Lower Appellate Court, as they could not establish authenticity and legality of sale deeds in their favour

Validity

Petitioners / defendants were unable to demonstrate any misreading/non-reading of evidence or perversity in findings of fora below falling within the scope of S.115, C.P.C.

High Court declined to interfere in judgments passed by two Courts below as view taken through concurrent findings was reasonable and sustainable on the basis of evidence on record

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Under Section 115, C.P.C, the revisional court has to ruminate the jurisdictional error of the Court below; if it acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or committed some error of procedure which affected the ultimate decision

In fact, this jurisdiction is corrective and supervisory in nature to ensure safe administration of justice and in a fit case, the Court in the same provision can exercise suo motu jurisdiction to advance the cause of justice to satisfy and reassure that the order is within its jurisdiction; the case is not one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and, in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision.

Revisional Court can even exercise its suomotu jurisdiction to ensure effective superintendence and visitorial powers to make sure the strict adherence to the safe administration of justice, and may correct any error unhindered by technicalities.

Unless grave perversity and illegality is found to be floating on the record, revisional Court must not overturn decrees passed by Courts below.

Labour Court constituted under S. 44 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, is empowered to exercise and perform such other powers and functions as are or may be conferred upon or assigned to it by Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, or any other law such as Payment Wages Act, 1936

Labour Court exercises jurisdiction over disputes beyond the purview of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010

Labour Court under the command of S. 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is competent to hear appeals against Authority constituted under S. 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal constituted under S. 47 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, exercises both appellate and revisional powers with respect to orders passed by Labour Court subject to various provisions of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010

There is no bar upon any party in laying information before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in the form of a Revision Petition not as a matter of right but in the discretion of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which in turn may decide to assume revisional jurisdiction depending upon facts and circumstances of each case warranting exercise or otherwise of revisional jurisdiction

If Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal exercises its revisional powers, the Tribunal acts within its lawful revisional jurisdiction to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by Labour Court

Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had revisional power with respect to an order passed by Labour Court in appeal preferred under S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Mere signing of unilaterally prepared 'Final Settlement Forms' by respondents / workmen could not be regarded as final settlements in absence of their free consent

Respondents / workmen promptly agitated their grievances and were still pursuing the same

Mere receipt of partial amounts based upon calculations of petitioner / employer did not place any bar upon respondents / workmen to invoke law for redressal of their grievances

High Court declined to interfere in judgments passed by for a below as there was no illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional defect

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Concurrent findings of two courts below supporting all a preponderance of claims were not to be interfered in revisional jurisdiction, unless extraordinary circumstances were demonstrated by the applicants

Revisional Court did not sit in reappraisal of the evidence and was thus distinguishable from a Court of the appellate jurisdiction.

High Court could not interfere in concurrent findings of courts below unless the judgments/orders of the courts would be found patently illegal and against the law

Different view of evidence could be taken by the courts below was no ground for setting aside of concurrent findings

Scope of revision was narrow and restrict only to the extent of correcting illegality/ irregularity of evidence of the courts below.

Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not permitted to re-open the case, rather the court confines itself only to law point involved in the matter or any specific portion of evidence if omitted by the courts below

Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with by the High Court until and unless grave injustice or material irregularity is proved.

Revisional jurisdiction of High Court is limited and while exercising revisional jurisdiction High Court is not permitted to re-open or dilate upon merits of the case unless and until grave injustice or illegality is proved on record.

Ordinarily the revisional court would not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the first two courts of fact but where there is misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record which is conspicuous, the revisional court shall interfere and can upset the concurrent findings, as well as where there is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts below and/or where the court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

High Court does not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below but, when it is evident that evidence on record was misread or non-read, interference was warranted to correct the jurisdictional errors or miscarriage of justice.

High Court had jurisdiction to interfere in the perverse concurrent judgments/decrees of the lower fora.

During the course of exercise of revisional jurisdiction the Court could pass any order needed in the circumstances of the case including rejection of plaint, if the same was required on the touchstone of the provision of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

Where the suit was apparently found to be time barred, the Court was bound to reject the plaint in exercise of visitorial/corrective powers under revisional jurisdiction

Revision was dismissed and the plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

Objections against award announced by arbitrator were dismissed by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court and award was made rule of the Court

Validity

If on reappraisal of evidence, a different view is possible, High Court cannot substitute its own view and upset findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the Courts below

Such findings can only be interfered with if the Courts below had misread the evidence or had committed a jurisdictional error

Dispute between the parties could not be resolved without the assistance of Dispute Review Expert (DRE)

It was for such reason that respondent company referred the dispute to DRE under specific clause of the Conditions of Particular Application

Just like rule 9(c) of Rules of Procedure for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert, the provision of R. 9(d) of Rules of Procedure for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert also does not prescribe any time limit within which a party can refer a dispute to DRE

Contractual provisions which placed a time limit on a party's right to initiate a dispute resolution process had to be strictly construed

Reference of dispute to DRE did not offend any provision of Conditions of Particular Application read with Rules and Procedures for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the award made rule of the Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Objections against award announced by arbitrator were dismissed by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court and award was made rule of the Court

Validity

If on reappraisal of evidence, a different view is possible, High Court cannot substitute its own view and upset findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the Courts below

Such findings can only be interfered with if the Courts below had misread the evidence or had committed a jurisdictional error

Dispute between the parties could not be resolved without the assistance of Dispute Review Expert (DRE)

It was for such reason that respondent company referred the dispute to DRE under specific clause of the Conditions of Particular Application

Just like rule 9(c) of Rules of Procedure for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert, the provision of R. 9(d) of Rules of Procedure for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert also does not prescribe any time limit within which a party can refer a dispute to DRE

Contractual provisions which placed a time limit on a party's right to initiate a dispute resolution process had to be strictly construed

Reference of dispute to DRE did not offend any provision of Conditions of Particular Application read with Rules and Procedures for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the award made rule of the Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Scope of revisional jurisdiction is confined to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have a material effect on the result of the case or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary to the law, but interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter is not possible in revisional jurisdiction

Difference existed between the misreading, non-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence, therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused and care must be taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to law.

Concurrent findings recorded by subordinate courts could not be called in question unless shown that their judgments were contrary to law, mis-appreciation of evidence and committed gross illegality

Mere possibilities of different view of evidence could not be a ground for setting aside the concurrent findings.

Court could not go beyond concurrent findings of the fact unless it could be shown that same were illegal; unlawful; based on the misapplication of relevant legal provisions; shocking; perverse; artificial; fanciful; so patently improbable that accepting the same could amount to perpetuating grave miscarriage of justice; or if there had been any misapplication of principle relating to appreciation of evidence; or if the finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible.

Expression "case decided" was not confined to an entire suit, but included an issue/part of a suit/proceedings where an interlocutory order, which dealt with substantial question in controversy between the parties and effect their right would come within the ambit of "case decided".

Concurrent findings of Courts below cannot be set aside on the ground that on reappraisal of evidence different view was possible

Where concurrent findings are not in accordance with law, there is glaring illegality, non-reading or misreading of evidence, then High Court can interfere in concurrent findings of the Courts

If concurrent findings are perverse, arbitrary or fanciful the same cannot be termed as sacrosanct and can be interfered with.

Not permissible for either party to assert a new fact for the first time before High Court when the matter was being heard under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the powers of High Court were limited as to whether the lower forum had committed an illegality, or exercised the jurisdiction not so vested in that court, or the order passed in excess of jurisdiction not so vested in the court below.

Judgments/decrees of both the courts below were not immune from interference of High Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction, provided the judgments/decrees were result of concealment of fact, mis-reading/non-reading of record and by not filing the suit with clean hands.

Concurrent findings recorded on facts, when do not suffer from any misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous, cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Concurrent findings of fact were against petitioner which did not call for any interference by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction.

High Court can correct a wrong done by an inferior criminal court through the powers of revision bestowed by Ss. 435 and 439, Cr.P.C.

High Court under S. 435, Cr.P.C., can call for and examine the record of any proceedings of subordinate criminal court to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order

Expression "may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior criminal court" used in S. 435, Cr.P.C., implies firstly that for exercising revisional powers, there is no need of any formal application and secondly it is applicable against an order as well

Language of S. 435, Cr.P.C., is explicit in nature and it exudes therefrom that High Court can examine the vires of an order passed even under S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Remedy of revision against such an order would depend on whether or not it could be termed as a "case decided" and whether it suffered from any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction vested in the subordinate court.

No absolute bar existed against entertaining revisional jurisdiction against an interlocutory order.

Expression "case decided" was not necessarily confined to a final order, rather it may, in particular facts and circumstances of the case, relate to an interlocutory order passed at any stage of the proceedings including an interim order requiring application of mind.

Scope of revision against findings of conviction is very limited, however, where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on the evidence or it is result of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record then revisional jurisdiction is very wide and is not a power, but a duty, which has to be exercised whenever facts calling for its exercise are brought to the notice of the court

Revisional Court can interfere for correction of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice.

Revision is a matter between the higher and subordinate courts, and the right to move an application in that respect is merely a privilege

Provisions of S.115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 have been divided into two parts: the first part enumerates the conditions under which the Court can interfere; and second part specifies the type of orders which are susceptible to Revision

Jurisdiction under S.115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is discretionary.

Plot allotted to petitioner by Housing Society was cancelled on account of non-payment of dues, which was further allotted to subsequent allottee

Subsequent allottee preferred appeal which was decided by Registrar Cooperative Societies (Registrar) directing respondent society to compensate the present petitioner by allotting an alternate plot, which was not implemented

Petitioner filed application for execution certificate during pendency whereof respondent society preferred appeal/revision for suspension of earlier orders, which was decided by Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Sindh (Government) setting aside order of Registrar and Award of the nominee of the Registrar

Government of Sindh directed the Registrar to appoint other suitable nominee for giving Award

Petitioner impugned said order of Government of Sindh

Held, that appeal was already preferred by subsequent allottee before Registrar, therefore, proceedings filed by respondent society before Government could not be treated as an appeal and revision both for the reasons firstly, that S.64 of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, did not provide a second appeal from appellate order passed under S.56 of Act, 1925; secondly, that Government while passing impugned order treated the proceeding as revision

Such proceeding was filed and order in appeal was passed after 6 months from passing said appeal

If original order/award passed in Arbitration Proceeding was not challenged by respondent society, the same could not be questioned by filing a revision under S.64A of Act, 1925

Lease could not have been cancelled in arbitration proceeding but the lease was overturned in decision of "Registrar" in appeal by keeping intact the leasehold rights of subsequent allottee and directing respondent society to give alternate plot to the petitioner; finding given in arbitration was maintained which attainted finality hence, could not have been interfered with in the purported revisional jurisdiction exercised by "Government"

Invoking revisional jurisdiction under S.64A was void ab-initio

Impugned order passed by "Government" was coram non judice and nullity in the eyes of law, hence, quashed

Plea of laches had also become meaningless

Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

Where revisional court had initially passed an order on both applications to issue notice to the other side but on the same day had passed another order "advocate to be heard", such order did not give any cause of action or trigger off any vested right to assail the order

Fact remained that maintainability of such applications was crucial, therefore, revisional court on the same day had reviewed its order before sending notice and in its proper application of mind had deemed it better to first hear advocate and after hearing reached to the conclusion that the applications were not maintainable and had finally dismissed the same

While doing so after hearing, the revisional court had fully followed the principles of natural justice and due process of law

Nobody could claim any vested right that on each and every application in routine the court was bound to issue notice to the other side, on the contrary, if the court deemed or reckoned that the application was not maintainable or having no worth or justification of issuing notice to the other side which, in fact, was moved to prolong or drag the proceedings with ulterior motives, the same could be dismissed without notice to the other side in order to save precious time of court and expeditious disposal of lis

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Revisional jurisdiction only applies to the cases involving illegal assumption, non-exercise or the irregular exercise of jurisdiction which can be invoked in the cases in which no appeal lies and the case was decided by subordinate court and such court appeared to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity

Scope of entertaining the revision application is only when the applicant's case falls within the four corners of provisions of S. 115, C.P.C. in which the court has only to see whether the requirements of the law have been duly and properly obeyed by the court whose order is the subject of revision and whether the irregularity as to failure or exercise of jurisdiction is such as to justify interference with the order

Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot travel beyond the scope of S. 115, C.P.C. and cannot go into the matters not relevant for the purposes of testing the jurisdictional error committed by the court below.

Concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be set at naught in revisional jurisdiction only on the basis that from reappraisal of evidence available on the record some other view is possible

Revisional jurisdiction is circumscribed to the eventualities mentioned in S.115, C.P.C.

High Court has authority, not only suo motu but also on an application of an aggrieved party, to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior criminal Court and pass appropriate orders

In order to invoke the revisional jurisdiction two conditions constituting jurisdictional facts would require to be fulfilled: first, it should relate to proceedings and second, the said proceedings should be before an inferior criminal Court

High Court under revisional jurisdiction has to examine the record for the purpose of satisfying its conscience to check the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order passed by the Courts subordinate to it, therefore, the duty cast upon the High Court on its revisional side compels it to reappraise the entire evidence, if it is found that the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence and the decision was on the basis of erroneous findings.

Revisional jurisdiction is meant for correction of jurisdictional error and material illegalities or irregularities and in absence thereof, the concurrent findings cannot be interfered with.

Petitioner's application for constitution of Medical Board for re-examination of injured persons was dismissed by Magistrate

Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the order passed by Magistrate was an administrative order hence, it was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction

Validity

Order dismissing the application for re-examination of injured was an administrative order for the reason that while passing such order no lis was pending before the Magistrate; that he was not functioning as criminal court; that he was not obligated to hear the parties before making such an order; that no conclusive decision was given and that no finality or irrevocability was attached to it

Order passed by Magistrate missed the necessary characteristics of being a judicial order

Revisional jurisdiction was not available to the Sessions Judge against the said order

Writ petition was dismissed.

Order of Magistrate allowing or dismissing an application for medical re-examination of the injured is an executive order

Such order is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.

Concurrent findings when found to be the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence or material irregularity and illegality, the same could be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Such findings can be disturbed by High Court, if the courts below has either misread the evidence on record or while assessing evidence has omitted from consideration some important piece of evidence, which has direct bearing on the issue involved.