Judgment:
ORDER
1. This petition is directed against an order dated 29-11-1997 passed by the Principal District Munsif at Anakapalle in EA No.27 of 1991 in EP No.33 of 1987 in OS No.49 of 1979 wherein the application filed by the petitioners herein and their mother Burgula Venkata Ratnam was dismissed.
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. One late Burgula Venkata Lakshman Rao, who is the husband of Burgula Venkata Ratnam and the father of the petitioners herein, was the lessee of the premises in question (as a monthly tenant). In a decree passed in OS No.49 of 1979, the said Lakshman Rao was directed to vacate the suit premises; an appeal taken therein against was dismissed. A second appeal was preferred by the said Lakshman Rao before the High Court. It is the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the second appeal, the matter was settled out of Court and the said Lakshman Rao agreed to all the conditions made by the 1st respondent herein and paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on 27-8-1984 in view of the resolution dated 29-7-1983 to the effect that he shall pay rents at Rs.175/- per month from 1-1-1983 to 31-12-1986 and shall pay all the arrears of rents and that he shall give a letter consenting to the above conditions, and the High Court recording the same has disposed of the second appeal. Thereafter, an execution petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein. The petitioners herein have opposed the execution petition alleging that the 1st respondent herein is executing the decree with a mala fide intention to have a wrongful gain.
3. The petitioners filed the aforementioned objection under Section 47 CPC inter alia on the ground that the decree holder having granted a fresh lease, the decree stands satisfied and as such an application for execution was not maintainable.
4. Before the learned Court below, a dispute was raised as to whether the second appeal was not pressed only in view of the subsequent event of grant of a fresh lease.
5. Before the learned trial Judge, only one document viz., a resolution dated 29-7-1983 passed by the respondent No.1 herein was produced and was marked as Ex.A14. The learned trial Court, having regard to the materials placed on record, came to the conclusion that no document of lease as such has been executed in favour of the petitioners. It is further held by the Court below that there had been no concluded contract entered into by and between the parties.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that as a finding of fact has been arrived at on the basis of the materials on records, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot reverse the said finding of fact inasmuch as no jurisdictional error therein has been pointed out.
7. It is now a well settled principles of law that a revision Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not interfere with the order impugned only because the same had been made on an error of law or fact. This Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC only when a jurisdictional error is pointed out. Even before the trial Judge the judgment and decree passed in the second appeal had not been produced. In any event, the said purported fresh lease was only for a period of three (03) years and the said period has also lapsed. In the event the decree is executed, I am of the opinion, no substantial injury is caused to the petitioners.