Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 read with East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance (I of 1964), S. 6(3) read with Ss. 7-A, 7-B & 7-C-High Court, jurisdiction of-Board of Revenue acting under S. 6(3), East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1964-Not a "Court subordinate to High Court" contemplated by S. 115, C. P. C. Decision of Board of Revenue under S. 6(3), East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1964-Not open to revision before High Court under S. 115, C. P. C. Simply because the authority discharges its function as a civil Court, it will not be a Court subordinate to the High Court. By reason of sections 7-B and 7-C of East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1964 it can be argued that the Board of Revenue acts as a civil Court but what is necessary, is that there should be a further provision in the statute making that body a subordinate Court. It is not enough to say that an Officer is acting judicially, nor it is sufficient to say that it is a Court. It is necessary to provide in the Act that its orders are subject to the scrutiny of the High Court. The Board of Revenue in acting under subsection (3) of section 6 of the Ordinance did not act as a Court subordinate to the High Court and as such an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. Sultan Nanghiana v. Nur Hussain A I R 1949 Lah. 131 ; Khetsidas Gangaram v. First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta A I R 1946 Cal. 508 ; Bhaiani Lal and others v. Secretary of State A I R 1932 All. 568 ; Abdul Sattar Sahib v. The Special Deputy Collector and others A I R 1924 Mad. 442 ; Jagarnath Lall v. Land Acquisition Deputy Collector, Patna A .I R 1940 Pat. 102 and Lal Chand v. Bharat Nidhl Ltd. A I R 1962 All. 378 rel. Anil Das and others v. Mustaque Ahmed P L D 1967 Dacca 521 distinguished. JUDGMENT A. S. CHOWDHURY, J. -These two applications are under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed against an order made by the Board of Revenue. We considered it necessary to hear the learned Advocate-General as amicus curiae on the point as to whether the Board of…