While exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the CPC, has set aside the concurrent findings of facts and law rendered by two competent Courts. In.........

Case Laws July 20, 2024

The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the CPC, has set aside the concurrent findings of facts and law rendered by two competent Courts. In the opinion of the High Court, the onus of proving the execution of the Memorandum was on the appellants and they had failed in discharging such onus. It is noted that rule 4 of order VI of the CPC explicitly provides that in all cases in which the party pleading relies, inter alia, on fraud, shall state in the pleadings particulars with dates and items if necessary. It is settled law that the parties are required to plead all facts that may constitute a cause of action for any relief or in defence, as the case may be. A party which alleges a fact has to prove the same and the ingredients of fraud have to be narrated and stated by giving particulars thereof. It is settled law that fraud must be specifically alleged and its particulars unequivocally stated. This Court has consistently held that general allegations, however strong the words may be, are insufficient to constitute an assertion of fraud and that vague allegations in a plaint are not enough.

It is settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 115 of the CPC the High Court has to first satisfy itself: (i) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction, (ii) that the case is one in which the court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and that in exercising jurisdiction that court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provisions of law, or with material irregularity by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision.3 Section 115 applies only to cases in which no appeal lies, and where the legislature has provided no right of appeal. The manifest intention of the legislature is that the order of the trial court, right or wrong, shall be final, except in specific circumstances. It is, therefore, obvious that unless the case is not covered under Section 115 of the CPC and the High Court was satisfied in this regard, then in such a case no power could be exercised to interfere simply because it differs, however profoundly, with the conclusions of the subordinate court regarding questions of law and facts. The scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC is limited in relation to concurrent findings of the competent courts. The exceptions to this rule are when the findings are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non consideration of material evidence, patent errors of law, consideration of inadmissible evidence, abuse of jurisdiction, when the conclusions drawn are perverse and based on conjectural presumptions. The erroneous decisions of fact are ordinarily not revisable and the mere fact that the High Court may differ on a question of fact or mixed question of law and fact is not a valid ground for interfering with concurrent findings. Moreover, the concurrent findings recorded on the basis of evidence is not susceptible to further review to justify interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The interference by a High Court in such jurisdiction would not be justified on the ground that reappraisal of evidence might suggest another view of the matter unless there has been a gross misreading of evidence and material evidence was ignored.