Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Correct Factual Errors

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, in Madan Mohan (Dead) Through LRs. v. Thakar Dass (Dead) Thr. LRs. (2026), set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, reversed concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot be used to correct factual errors unless they amount to a jurisdictional error, even where facts are alleged to have been concealed. 

What was the Background of Madan Mohan v. Thakar Dass (2026) Case? 

• The landlady had sought eviction of the tenant from a shop, contending that rent had not been validly tendered and that the premises were bona fide required for her son's business. 
• Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, on concurrent appreciation of evidence, found in favour of the landlady and decreed eviction. 
• The tenant challenged these concurrent findings before the High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC, contending that the landlady had suppressed the existence of a third shop that was lying vacant and could serve as alternate accommodation. 
• The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the concurrent findings on the ground that the landlady had not approached the court with clean hands by failing to disclose the third shop. 
• The landlord's legal representatives appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the scope of Section 115 CPC: The Court held that revisional jurisdiction cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction, and that a High Court exercising revisional powers cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the courts below merely because another view is possible. 
• On correction of factual errors in revision: The Court held that mere errors of fact or law cannot be corrected through revisional jurisdiction unless such errors relate to a jurisdictional defect, and that an allegation of concealment of facts does not, by itself, justify interference with concurrent findings. 
• On the third shop relied upon by the tenant: The Court noted that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had already returned a concurrent finding that the third shop was being used to store waste material and was therefore not suitable alternate accommodation, and questioned what had prompted the High Court to take a contrary view on this same factual finding. 
• On the concurrent findings below: The Court held that the findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority that rent had not been validly tendered and that the landlady genuinely required the premises were findings of fact that were neither perverse nor vitiated by any jurisdictional error, and therefore could not have been disturbed in revision. 
• On relief granted: The Court held that the High Court had exceeded the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction and accordingly set aside its judgment, restoring the concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed. 

What is Section 115 of CPC? 

About: 

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the High Court (or District Court, in specified cases) to call for and examine the record of a case decided by a subordinate court, with a view to correcting jurisdictional errors where no appeal lies against the decision. 

Text of the Provision: 

• Sub-section (1): The High Court, in original suits or proceedings valued above ₹5 lakh, and the District Court, in other cases, may call for the record of any case decided by a subordinate court where no appeal lies, if that court has: (a) exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested; or (c) acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction. The proviso reserves exclusive competence to the High Court for revisions in District Court decisions of any valuation. 
• Sub-section (2): Neither Court can vary or reverse an interlocutory order in revision unless that order, had it been passed in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding. 
• Sub-section (3): A revision does not operate as a stay of proceedings unless the High Court or District Court specifically stays them. 
• Explanation: "Any case which has been decided" includes an order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or proceeding. 

Object of Revisional Power: 

• Enables an aggrieved party to seek rectification of a non-appealable order. 
• Allows the High Court to exercise its superintending and visitorial powers effectively. 
• Restrains subordinate courts from acting arbitrarily, illegally, or irregularly within their jurisdiction. 

Scope of Revisional Power: 

• Confined to keeping subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. 
• Does not require or permit the High Court to reappreciate evidence on merits. 
• Not available against errors of law or fact that do not involve a question of jurisdiction. 
• Also available where a subordinate court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. 
• Discretionary in nature, and limited strictly to jurisdictional errors. 
• Can be exercised by the High Court suo motu. 
• The High Court is not bound to interfere except in aid of justice. 
• Applies only where no appeal lies against the decision.