1. The circumstances in which this revision petition by Dr. Harbans Lal Khosla has been filed are as follows. The plaintiff is the tenant of a portion of the house 13-A, Keeling Road, New Delhi, owned by the defendant respondent Mohan Lal Sanon, and he claims to have been forcibly dispossessed of a part of the premises in his occupation including a portion of the back lawn and part of the servants' quarters. He therefore brought a suit to recover possession of these parts of the property in which he valued his claim at Rs. 100/-. The defendant raised the plea inter alia that the suit was not properly valued, and this objection has been accepted by the lower Court which directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint and value the suit at the market value of the property in accordance with Section 7(v), Court-fees Act. It is against this order that he has come in revision.
2. It is objected on behalf of the respondent that the petition does not fall within the purview of Section 115, Civil P. C., and, in my opinion, this objection must be sustained. There appears to be an impression that any order which is not in itself appealable can 'ipso facto' be made the subject of a petition under Section 115, Civil P. C., but it cannot be too strongly stressed that any such order cannot be attacked in revision merely because it is wrong, and it must be attacked on the ground that either the Court has acted without jurisdiction or has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction.
The views expressed by the Privy Council on this point in a number of judgments have recently been reiterated by the Supreme Court in --'Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamaria', AIR 1953 SC 23 (A). It is mentioned in the course of the judgment that the cases cited in Chitaley's Edition of the Civil Procedure Code under Section 115 merely serve to show that the High Courts have not always appreciated the limits of the jurisdiction conferred by this section, and it has been held, following the principles laid down by the Privy Council, that unless the error of the lower Court takes one of the forms mentioned in Section 115, the High Court has no power to interfere however profoundly it may differ from the decision of the lower Court on questions of law or fact.
3. Thus on the face of it, whether the decision of the lower Court in this case regarding the proper valuation of the suit is right or wrong, this Court should not interfere. Apart from this, I consider that an order of this particular kind is one in which the High Courts should be particularly reluctant to interfere, since if only one further step is taken and, the plaintiff, having failed to value his suit properly and pay the necessary court-fee, the plaint is rejected, that order is appealable and there does not appear to me to be any reason at all why a plaintiff should be allowed to challenge the preliminary order in revision. It has in fact been stated before me that in the present case the plaintiff has failed to pay the court-fee as required by the lower Court and his plaint has been rejected. He must therefore appeal against that order. I accordingly dismiss the revision petition with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 32/-.