တရားမကျင့်ထုံးဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၁၁၅(ဂ)ပါ”illegally “နှင့်”material irregularity”အကြောင်း

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

တရားမပြင်ဆင်မှုအကြောင်းဆွေးနွေးလိုပါသည်။

ပြင်ဆင်မှုဘောင်ကိုတရားမကျင့်ထုံးဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၁၁၅တွင်အတိအလင်းကန့်သတ်ထားပါလျက်ပြင်ဆင်မှုများရာချီ၍တင်သွင်းသည်။

တရားမကျင့်ထုံးဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၁၁၅၏ဘောင်တွင်အကျုံးမဝင်ပါဘဲလျက်၊တင်သွင်းကြောင်းတွေ့ရဆဲဖြစ်သည်။

တရားရုံးများကလည်းပယ်ဆဲဖြစ်သည်။

တရားမကျင့်ထုံးဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၁၁၅၏အပိုဒ်ခွဲ(က)နှင့်(ခ)ပါပြဌာန်းချက်များသည်ရှင်းပါသည်။

အပိုဒ်ခွဲ(ဂ)ကိုမှုခင်းများနှင့်စပ်ဟပ်ကာပြင်ဆင်မှုတင်သွင်းနိုင်မနိုင်ချိန်ဆရာ၌မူအားနည်းကြောင်းတွေ့ရသည်။

ကြားဖြတ်အမိန့်တရပ်သည်ဥပဒေနှင့်မညီရုံမျှဖြင့်ပုဒ်မ၁၁၅(ဂ)တွင်အကျုံးဝင်သည်ဟုတထစ်ချမဆိုနိုင်။

ပုဒ်မ၁၁၅(ဂ)ပါ”illegally “ဆိုသောစကားရပ်သည်၊စီရင်ပိုင်ခွင့်နှင့်ဆက်နွယ်ရမည်။

သက်သေခံချက်အပေါ်သုံးသပ်ချက်မှားယွင်းရုံမျှဖြင့်ပြင်ဆင်မှုမတင်နိုင်။

————————————

Bombay High Court

N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar vs The Hindu Religious Endowments ... 

on 14 January, 1949

Equivalent citations: (1949) 51 BOMLR 952

Author: J Beaumont

Bench: Porter, M Nair, J Beaumont

JUDGMENT John Beaumont, J.

အမှုတွင်၊ပုဒ်မ၁၁၅ပါ”illegally “ဆိုသောစကားရပ်မှာဥပဒေပြဌာန်းချက်အချို့ကိုဖောက်ဖျက်ခြင်းကိုရည်ညွှန်းကြောင်း၊”material irregularity”ဆိုသောစကားရပ်မှာအမှုကိုအပြီးသတ်ဆုံးဖြတ်မှုကိုထိခိုက်စေနိုင်သောအမှုစစ်ဆေးရာ၌လုပ်ထုံးလုပ်နည်းမှားယွင်းချက်ကိုရည်ညွှန်းကြောင်း၊ပုဒ်မ၁၁၅တွင်အကျုံးမဝင်လျင်အောက်ရုံးများကအကြောင်းခြင်းရာနှင့်စပ်လျဉ်း၍ဖြစ်စေ၊ဥပဒေနှင့်စပ်လျဉ်း၍ဖြစ်စေဆုံးဖြတ်ထားချက်နှင့်တရားရုံးချုပ်တို့မည်သို့ပင်ကွဲလွဲစေကာမူပြင်ဆင်မှုတွင်စွက်ဖက်ခြင်းမပြုနိုင်ကြောင်းအောက်ပါအတိုင်းထုံးဖွဲ့ထားသည်-

စီရင်ချက်စာမျက်နှာ၁၊အပိုဒ်၂တွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်သည်-

“2. The only matter which arises for determination in this appeal, and on which special leave to appeal was granted, is whether the learned Judges of the High Court had any power to interfere in revision with the said order of the District Judge.”

စီရင်ချက်စာမျက်နှာ၃နှင့်၄၊အပိုဒ်၁၆၊၁၇တွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်သည်-

“16. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in the following terms:

The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears.

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have (ailed to exorcise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.

17. As long ago as 1884 in the case of Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. She Buksh Singh (1884) L.R. 11 I.A. 237 the Privy Council made the following observation upon Section 622 of the former Code of Civil Procedure which was replaced by Section 115 of the Code of 1008 (p. 289):

The question then is did the Judges of the lower Courts in this case, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, act illegally or with material irregularity. It appears that they had perfect jurisdiction to decide the question which was before them, and they did decide it. Whether they decided rightly or wrongly, they had jurisdiction to decide the ease; and even if they decided wrongly, they did not exercise their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

In the case of Balakrishna Vdayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar (1917) L.R. 44 I.A. 261 : s.c. 19 Bom. L. R. 715 the Board observed (p. 267):-

It will be observed that the section applies to jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of its or the illegal assumption of it. The section is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the Question of jurisdiction is not involved.”

စီရင်ချက်စာမျက်နှာ၄၊အပိုဒ်၁၈နှင့်၁၉တွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆက်လက်သုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“18. In the present case the learned Judges of the High Court did not act upon this principle. They set aside the judgment of the District Judge because they considered that he had made a serious mistake in the construction which he had placed upon the will of the testator and they seem to have thought that a serious error of law could be corrected in revision. There have been, no doubt, decisions in some High Courts in India which lend support to the view upon which the Judges acted.

The cases are collected in the 4th edition of Chitaley and Rao on the Code of Civil Procedure, Vol. I, p. 1105. In Mount v. Khetter Moni Dassi (1896) 1 C.W.N. 617 the High Court of Calcutta expressed the opinion that Sub-section (c) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was "intended to authorise the High Courts to interfere and correct gross and palpable errors of subordinate Courts, so as to prevent gross injustice in non-appealable cases." This passage was dissented from by the Calcutta High Court in Enat Mondul v. Baloram Dey (1899) 3 C.W.N. 581 but was cited with, approval by Lort-Williams J. in Gulabchand Bangur v. Kabiruddin Ahmed (1930) I.L.R. 58 Cal. 111.

Their Lordships can see no justification for any such view; it would indeed be difficult to formulate any standard by which the degree of error of subordinate Courts could be measured. Section 115 applies only to cases in which no appeal lies, and, where the Legislature has provided no right of appeal, the manifest intention is that the order of the trial Court, right or wrong, shall be final. The section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction, (b) that the ease is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction, and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly, from the conclusions of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law. No such matters arose in this ease, and the order of the High Court upon the petition was without justification.

19. For these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be allowed, that the order made by the High Court at Madras on November 6, 1944, upon the original petition No. 15 of 1939 be set aside and that the order on such petition made by the learned District Judge at Ramnad dated August 7, 1943, so far as it declared the said temple to be a private one, be restored.

Their Lordships, however, must not be understood as expressing any opinion upon the question whether the said temple is a private one or a public one, which question is not before them. The respondent must pay the costs of the revision application to the High Court made in O.P. No. 15 of 1939 and of this appeal.”

————————————-

Supreme Court of India

Keshardeo Chamria vs Radha Kissen Chamria And .

on 30 October, 1952

Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 23, 1953 SCR 136

Author: M C Mahajan

Bench: Mahajan, Mehr Chand

PETITIONER: KESHARDEO CHAMRIA

                          Vs.

RESPONDENT: RADHA KISSEN CHAMRIA AND OTHERSRADHA KISSEN CHAMRIA AND OTHE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/10/1952

BENCH:

MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND BENCH:

MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BOSE. VIVIAN HASAN, GHULAM

CITATION: 1953 AIR 23

အမှုတွင်ပုဒ်မ၁၁၅(ဂ)ပါ”ဥပဒေနှင့်ဆန့်ကျင်ခြင်း””အဓိကအားဖြင့်လုပ်ထုံးလုပ်နည်းနှင့်မညီခြင်း”တို့သည်”လုပ်ထုံးလုပ်နည်းတွင်အဓိကမှားယွင်းချက်”ကိုရည်ညွှန်းကြောင်း၊”ဥပဒေအရဆောင်ရွက်ရန်ရှိသည်များကိုလိုက်နာဆောင်ရွက်ပြီးနောက်ဥပဒေအရဖြစ်စေ၊အကြောင်းခြင်းရာအရဖြစ်စေမှားယွင်းချက်”ကိုမရည်ညွှန်းကြောင်းရှင်းပြသည်။

ထို့ပြင်မှားယွင်းချက်များသည်ချမှတ်သောဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်များကိုရည်ညွှန်းခြင်းမပြု၊ဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်များရရှိပုံကိုရည်ညွှန်းသည်ဟုစီရင်ချက်စာမျက်နှာ၁၁တွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆက်လက်ရှင်းပြသည်-

"There have been a very large number of decisions of Indian High Courts section 115 to many of which their Lordships have been referred. Some of such decisions prompt the observation that High Courts have not always appreciated that although error in a decision of a subordinate court does not by itself involve that the subordinate court has acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to justify interference in revision under sub-section (c), nevertheless, if the erroneous decision results in the sub- ordinate court exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so, vested, a case for revision arises under subsection (a) or subsection (b) and sub-section (c) can be ignored."

Reference may also be made to the observations of Bose J. in his order of reference in Narayan Sonaji v. Sheshrao Vithoba(2) wherein it was said that the words "illegally" and "material irregularity" do not cover either errors of fact or law. They do not refer to the decision arrived at but, to the manner in which it is reached The errors contemplated relate to material defects of procedure and not to errors of either law or fact after the formalities which the law prescribes have been complied with. We are therefore of the opinion that in reversing the order of the executing court dated the 25th April, 1945, reviving the execution, the High Court exercised jurisdiction not conferred it by section 116 of the Code. It is plain that the order of the Subordinate Judge dated the 25th April,. 1945, was one that he had jurisdiction to make, that in making that order he neither acted in excess, of his jurisdiction (I) (I949) T .R. 76 J. A. 131.