Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.:— This is a revision petition filed by Deep Ram against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge Ambala who had rejected his appeal against the order of the learned trail Judge, who had dismissed his application for temporary injunction
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the property of Deep Ram ultimately came to the hands of Amir Chand. After his death his son Nanak Chand filed a suit for its possession by redemption. The suit was decreed. The appeals against that decree were also dismissed One of the defendants in the suit whs Deep Ram son of Hari Kishan Nanak Chand took out execution of the decree Deep Ram, the present petitioner, filed objections. They were also dismissed by the executing Court. The petitioner filed a suit in the Civil Court in which, inter alia he claimed that he had become the owner of the shop in dispute ???y adverse possession and could not be ejected from that shop in execution of the decree passed in the Civil Court. In short, his case in he suit as well as in the objections before the executing Court was that the present petitioner was not made a party to the earlier suit, and the decree had in fact not been passed against him. He made an application to the learned. Trial Court for injunction re???raining the defendent Nanak Chand from taking possession of the shop in dispute. This application was dismissed. He filed an appeal against the order of the learned trial Court. The same was also dismissed. D???s???atisfied with these orders, he has filed the present revision petition.
3. At the ???reshold, Mr. H. ??? Sarin, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection. He has contended that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to decide the application for grant of temporary injunction one ??? or the other. The trial Court exercised its jurisdiction and rejected the application. It cannot be said that the trial Court or the learned lower appellate Court exercised jurisdiceither illegally or with meterial irregularity. Therefore, according to the ‘earned counsel, the present petition under Section 1???5, Code of Civil Procedure, is not competent and this Court cannot interfere with t???e order of the trial Court. In support of this contention, he has relied on The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronauties Ltd. Bala-nagar, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase & Stores) H.A.L Bala-nagar Hyderabad . 1972 3 SCC 195, ??? and The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria . 1976 4 SCC 719. Undoubtedly, both these judgments help him. It has been clearly held that unless there is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, no revision petition is competent. In the present case, Mr. G.S Chawla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned trial Court or the learned lower appellate Court. Mr. Chawla contended that by the recent amendment in the Civil Procedure Code in sec ion ???5, the scope of this section has been widened 1 find that there is no merit in this contention. By the amen???ment rather a further qualification has been prescribed. It has been provided that the High Court shall not va???y or reverse any order by the subordinate Courts, except where the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion ??? failure of justice or cause ???reprab ??? injury to the party against whom it was made So, now after the amendment, the impugned order can be set aside only if there is a jurisdictional error and further by the impugned order failure of justice is occasioned or irreparable injury to the parties is caused. The scope of section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, has not been widened, it has rather been narrowed down.
4. I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. The parties are directed through their learned counsel to appear before the learned trial Court on September 24, 1979. The records of the case which have been summoned from the learned trial Court, be sent back forthwith.
H.L.S
Revision petition dismissed.