Judgment:
ORDER
S.S. Satheesachandran, J.
1. The respondents in C.R.P. No. 700/2006 who were the claimants before the court below seeking enhanced compensation from the Kerala State Electricity Board for the trees cut and removed from their property/towards the drawing of an electric line, have filed the present petition,-purporting it to be cross objections, to claim additional compensation which was not allowed under the impugned order passed by the court below. The Registry raised an objection on the maintainability of entertaining cross objections in a revision and on the request of the counsel the matter has been placed for consideration before the Court.
2. I heard the counsel for the petitioners/respondents in the C.R.P. No. 700/2006 filed by the KSEB challenging the compensation awarded to the claimants before the court below. The learned Counsel relying on a decision rendered with respect to the ambit of revisional power covered by Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the entertainability of cross objections in such revisions canvassed before me that cross objections are entertainable in a revision filed under Section 115 CPC as well. The counsel has relied on Sadasivan Chettiar v. Rajendran : 2005 (1) KLT 653 to contend that even if Order XLI Rule 22 does not apply in the case of a revision, the principles thereunder are applicable enabling the respondents to challenge wrong finding recorded by the court below. It was further urged that revision -of power is more of less akin to appellate power so far as the procedural rights of the parties to challenge the findings which have been entered as adverse to them by the lower forum.
3. I find no merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondents in the revision petition. It is fallacious to contend that procedural rights available to a party in appeal are applicable in the case of a revision as well. Where as a right of appeal is a substantive right in the case of revision under Section 115 CPC, no right is conferred on the litigant aggrieved by order of the subordinate court to approach the High Court for relief. Needless to point out the scope for invoking the revision under Section 115 is not linked with a substantive right. Revisional power vested with the High Court under Section 115 CPC is intended to supervise the subordinate courts and its ambit and scope is limited within the parameters outlined by that Section. Revisional power conferred under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings-(Lease-and Rent Control) Act is much wider than what is covered under Section 115 CPC. In exercising revisional power under Section 20 of the Act, finding entered by the rent control authority and also the appellate authority are open to scrutiny with respect to their legality, propriety and correctness where as exercise of revision under Section 115 CPC lies within a narrow scope. Interference is permissible only if there was jurisdictional error in the orders of the lower court/Tribunal. There is no scope for entertaining cross objections in a revision when the revisional power is exercised under Section 115 CPC. Whether cross objections can be filed in a revision under Section 115 CPC was considered in Venkatarama Naicker v. Ramasarni Naicker and Ors. AIR 1952 Mad 504 and it has been held that Order XLI Rule 22 CPC is inapplicable to revision and no cross objections can be received in such proceedings. This Court in K. Chellappan Pillai v. K. Kunju Pillai 1969 KLR 659 had also expressed a similar view but with a reservation that in extra ordinary cases if any cross objection is tendered it may be treated as a request to exercise its revisional power suo motu. In the above decision it is held thus:
Even if a cross-objection were entertainable it is essentially a matter of discretion of the Court. In the present case, the respondent has come up long after the period of limitation for filing a revision by him, and probably only because the revision has been filed by the 1st defendant In such a case there is no justification for showing hint an indulgence or exercising judicial discretion in his favour In the ordinary run of cases, the court should not treat a cross-objection as revision as that would subvert and stultify the provisions of the Court Fees Act, the Limitation Act and the rules under the Civil Procedure Code, dealing with revisions. In extraordinary cases, may be, the power could be exercised and even a cross-objection may be treated as a request to exercise its revisional power suo motu.
In the present case the petitioner, the claimant before the court below challenges the quantum of compensation fixed by the court below by way of cross objections in the revision filed by the opposite party, the respondent before the court below, challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded. An adverse finding in the order of the court below impugned in the revision may be in extraordinary circumstances can be canvassed persuading this Court to take note of it in exercise of revision suo motu, but not a claim adjudicated upon and disallowed or found against by the court below.. It is only to be stated the cross objections filed by the respondent in the revision are not entertainable in the revision filed under Section 115 CPC.
Objections raised by the Registry is sustained, and the affidavit filed by the respondent styled as cross objections is rejected.