1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision, and it arises in the following circumstances.
2. One Mt. Waziru conferred occupancy rights in 46 bighas odd land on her son-in-law Rajmal for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. One Finu, claiming to be a reversioner, filed a suit impugning the transaction. That suit was decided in 1985 and it was held that the reversioner would be entitled to get possession on the property on payment of Rs. 416/-. That was the extent to which the aforesaid consideration of Rs. 1,000/- was held to have been justified by legal necessity. It appears that this sum of Rs. 416/- represented the amount which Rajmal had to pay to one Malagar in order to redeem a mortgage in his favour by Mt. Waziru. On the death of Mt. Waziru, but after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit, the father and uncles of the present plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of the aforesaid 46 odd bighas of land as reversioners against Rajmal. One Anant Ram acted as attorney for the plaintiffs in that suit, and he obtained a decree in favour of the plaintiffs of that suit for recovery of possession of the aforesaid 46 odd bighas of land on a compromise on payment of the aforesaid Rs. 416/-. It was for repayment of this sum of Rs. 416/- that the plaintiffs of the said suit, i.e., the father and uncles of the present plaintiffs, executed a sale-deed on the 3rd of Poh 1999B., in favour of the said Anant Ram and the latter's brother Sada Ram. The property alienated under this sale-deed consisted of 18 bighas of land out of the aforesaid 46 odd bighas. Thereupon the present suit was filed by the sons of one of the vendors and nephews of the remaining three vendors against the said vendees, Anant Ram and Sada Ram, for a declaration that the alienated land being ancestral and the sale not having been made for legal necessity, the alienation was not binding on the reversion after the death of the vendors. These vendors were also impleaded as defendants in the present suit. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the plaintiffs' appeal met the same fate in the Court of the District Judge, and now they have come up in revision.
3. The learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners says that the present revision has been filed under paragraph 35(1)(b) of the Bilaspur (Courts) Order, 1949, and that therefore under the fourth proviso to that paragraph this Court should treat the matter of this revision as if it were an appeal. In order to appreciate the force of this argument, it is necessary to set forth here the ground of revision pressed before me. That ground is that Rajmal having paid off the aforesaid mortgage debt was subrogated to the position of a mortgagee, that likewise Anant Ram and thereafter the aforesaid vendors (the father and uncles of the present plaintiffs) were also subrogated to the same position, and that therefore the said mortgage was by reason of the sale-deed dated the 3rd of Poh, 1999B, converted into a sale. It was further argued on the basis of the ruling in 'Rajendra Singh v. Abdul Ghani', 25 Pun Re 1917, that such conversion of a mortgage into a sale did not constitute a legal necessity.
4. Now, the aforesaid provision of the Bilaspur (Courts) Order, 1949, whereunder the present revision is stated to have been filed runs as follows:
'The Court of the Judicial Commissioner may call for the record of any case which has been decided by a Civil Court subordinate to it in which no appeal lies to it, and
(a) ......... ......... .........
(b) if on an application made to it the Court of the Judicial Commissioner is of opinion that there is an important question of law or custom involved and that such question requires further consideration, the Court of the Judicial Commissioner may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.'
5. From what has been stated above it is clear that in order to dispose of the present revision the determination of the following questions is necessary: (1) Whether the vendor defendants-respondents in this case were subrogated to the position of the original mortgagee Malager, (2) whether by reason of the sale in favour of the defendants-respondents Anant Ram and Sada Ram the said mortgage had been converted into a sale and (3) if the findings on the above two questions be in the affirmative, whether such a conversion of mortgage into sale did not amount to legal necessity? These questions, in my opinion, do not constitute important questions of law (there being no question of custom here) which might be said to require further consideration by this Court within the intendment of the provisions cited above. Those are questions, on the contrary, which are well settled one way or the other by precedents of various High Courts. It may be that in deciding those questions the lower appellate Court has come to a wrong conclusion, but for that reason alone it could not be said that a further consideration of those questions is called for by this Court in exercise of its powers in revision. Obviously, those questions could not be re-opened under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of paragraph 35 of the Bilaspur (Courts) Order, 1949, because, by reason of having come to a wrong decision on the said questions, the lower appellate Court could not be said to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity. It would however, have been still open to the plaintiffs-petitioners to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the above cited Sub-clause (b) of that paragraph provided that an important question of law were involved requiring further consideration by this Court. It is mani-fest that it is not every question of law which would call for further consideration by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the aforesaid provision, but only an important question of law. And the importance of a question of law, in my opinion, is not to be judged from the point of view of its importance to a party, for every question that may be decided against the interests of a party may be important to that party. The importance of a question of law or custom mentioned in the said provision must, to my mind, depend on whether the question of law or custom involved is such that, regard being had to the conditions prevalent in this newly formed State of Bilaspur, it is not covered by a precedent of this Court or any other High Court which could have served as a guide to the Courts below. That, however, could not be predicated of the aforesaid questions arising for determination in the present revision, and I have already given my reasons for that view. That being so, I hold that the decision of the lower appellate Court is not open to challenge on the aforesaid grounds pressed before me.
6. The revision is rejected with costs tothe respondents.